Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Horouta II - Milestone 2 Report Ngāti Porou

Prepared by the Ngāti Porou Freshwater Group

January 2015

1 Contents 2 Te Waiu - Te Wai Māori mo Ngāti Porou ...... 3 3 Introduction ...... 4 3.1 Purpose...... 4 3.2 Objectives ...... 4 3.3 Method used to gather information ...... 5 3.4 The Team ...... 5 3.5 Process History...... 6 4 Ngāti Porou relationship with Wai ...... 7 5 Current State of our rohe and water ways ...... 12 5.1 What are our catchments? ...... 12 5.2 What are our key water bodies?...... 13 5.3 What are the issues we face with our waterways and their management? ...... 13 5.4 The Current Situation within the Ngati Porou Rohe ...... 15 6 Possible Mechanisms to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai ...... 17 6.1 Joint Management Agreement through a Treaty Settlement ...... 17 6.2 Advisory Committees ...... 18 6.3 Water Catchment Bodies ...... 19 6.4 Maori Seats ...... 20 7 A Possible Approach to Recognise Ngati Porou’s Interests ...... 22 7.1 Whanau and Hapu Governance and Management ...... 22 7.2 Local Government ...... 23 7.2.1 Section 33 Transfer of Powers ...... 23 7.3 Section 36B Joint Management Agreements ...... 24 7.3.1 Effect of Section 36B ...... 24 7.3.2 Scope of the JMA ...... 24 7.3.3 Proposed Joint Management Agreement between Ngati Porou and the GDC ...... 24 7.3.4 Representation on the JMA Decision Making Body ...... 25 7.3.5 Appropriate Qualifications and Skills ...... 25 7.3.6 Financial Implications ...... 25 8 The Ngāti Porou and Crown Relationship ...... 26 9 Conclusion ...... 27 10 Appendices: Minutes ...... 28

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

2 Te Waiu - Te Wai Māori mo Ngāti Porou

Mauriora kia Ranginui Ko Io Matua Kore anake Tawhirimatea e muia nei i tona koka i te waiora, Mauriora kia Papatuanuku Ko Ngāti Porou tangata, Ko Ngāti Porou whenua, tona taiao, tona tūrangawaewae, tona papatipu.

I te hītanga ake o Maui Tikitiki a Taranga i te whenua nei Whakaeteteete mai Ko Hikurangi Ka tau tona waka a Nukutaimemeha ki te roto o Hinetakawhiti kei ngā tihi tapu o Hikurangi, ara, Te Tone o Houku me te Tipi o Taikehu, e rangona nei te whakatauaki, “Ko Hikurangi te maunga, Ko Waiapu te awa, Ko Ngāti Porou te iwi” Ko te waiutanga mai i Potikirua ki te Toka a Taiau, atu i te Raukumara ki te uru, whakawhiti ki te hikumutu ki te rawhiti Ko te tuanui o tona kainga Ko Ranginui, a Ko Papatuanuku tona papa Ko te wai te toto o Papatuanuku i roto i tona tapu me tona noa.

He wai mou!, He wai mau! Hei whakaora i te ngakau o Porou

Ngāti Porou establish their rights and interests in the Wai through descent from Ranginui, Papatuanuku and Tawhirimatea and their orccupation of the Eastern seaboard lands between Potikirua and Te Toka a Taiau since Maui fished up his great fish- Te Ika a Maui. The Wai is the life blood of the land with its ritual and sacred elements and its functional, everyday elements. Our relationship and association with the Wai is recorded in our waiata, whakatauaki and the names of our rivers, streams, creeks and puna and in our everyday practice.

1: Waiapu Koka huhua

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

3 Introduction

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to inform people of the relationship that Ngāti Porou has with the wai in their rohe and reconfirm that the relationship is based on whakapapa, mana whenua and kaitiakitanga. To assert Ngāti Porou rights and interests in the Wai in accordance with Te Mana o te Wai and Toitu Ngāti Porou frameworks.

The report also describes the mechanisms considered and the mechanisms agreed to give effect to their rights and interests in the Wai, recognising the environment that they are operating in, central and local government planning policies, processes and systems and their own state of preparedness at both Iwi and hapū governance and management levels.

Finally the report lays out a pathway for Ngāti Porou to work with the Gisborne District Council to establish a Section 36B Joint Management Agreement, staircasing within five years to a Delegated Resource Management Authority under Section 33 of the RMA. The pathway also identifies the key capabilities that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou will need to build to fulfill their responsibilities as a JMA under s36B or as a Delegated Authority under s33 of the RMA as well as meet their obligations in fulfilling the principles of Te Mana o Te Wai and Toitu Ngāti Porou.

3.2 Objectives

The Objectives of this report are;

 Articulate the Ngāti Porou world-view of the Wai and the nature of our ongoing, uniterrupted relationship with the Wai.  Inform ourselves and others of the status and state of the wai in our rohe.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

 Identify the appropriate mechanisms to recognise and give effect to the rights and interests of ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou in the wai.  Establish the rationale for proposed mechanisms and approach.  Identify what mechanisms can be addressed by the Gisborne District Council (GDC), and how they may be effected.

3.3 Method used to gather information

We have conducted and recorded discussions with ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou on Wai between 25 October, 2014 and 17 January 2015 to:

 ascertain the nature of their relationship and their association with the Wai and the rights and interests they believe that they have in the Wai in their rohe.  determine how they believe thoses rights and interests could be recognised and given effect.  identify the appropriate mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to their rights and interests.

Hui were organised primarily at the hapū level and facilitated to enable good information exchanges and free and frank discussions. Ngāti Porou agreed that the organisational and management capability, authority and responsibility for the Wai exists at hapū level. They accept that there are complementary roles that will be conducted at the Iwi level, such as; coordinating the conversations with the GDC and the Crown on behalf of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and maintaining oversight of the work undertaken as part of the MoU’s and Accords established in the Ngāti Porou Deed of Settlement with the Crown for Historic Treaty Claims and in the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Takutaimoana (FSSB) Deed of Agreement with the Crown.

The Ngāti Porou Freshwater Team, has drawn on data , research , maps and documents sourced from:

 Previous Ngāti Porou Reports on Wai , Environmental Resource Management, the Ngāti Porou Treaty Settlements and Ngāti Porou Takutaimoana.  GDC maps, reports and plans.  Research, work and Agreements developed by other Iwi and ILG-Freshwater.  Central Government; National Policy Statement, LAWF Report’s.  Report’s have been prepared as a collective effort, with members delegated responsibility for sections of report prepared based on their knowledge, skills and expertise.

3.4 The Team

Selwyn Parata Hui Convenor , Co-Facilitator and Co-Report Writer Tina Porou Co-Facilitator, Technical Support and Co-Report Writer Ruihana Paenga Hui Minute taker, Co-Administration Support Pia Pohatu Technical Support and Co-Report Writer Matanuku Mahuika Technical Support and Co-Report Writer Rapaea Parata Administration Support

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

3.5 Process History

Ngati Porou prepared and commissioned a Nga Hapu o Ngati Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou number of reports on Porou commence Takutaimoana Deed of Wai within the Ngati Fisheries & Agreement signed & Porou rohe over a Takutaimoana Plans number of years with a Ngati Porou DoS signed focus on the Waiapu

Report of hui included Exchanged Information 7 Ngati Porou in HIC Report to ILG & with Crown to determine Waimaori Hui ICF and presented at Iwi Rights & Interest Case- Studies and state of wai 28 Oct - 29 Nov 2014 the TRONPnui Hui a Tau nationwide.

Ngati Porou commence 5 Ngati Porou Report of hui, mechanisms and discussions with GDC Waimaori Hui current state of Wai in on Ngati Porou 7 - 17 January 2015 Ngati Porou included in Freshwater HIC Report Management Plan and system

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

4 Ngāti Porou relationship with Wai

“He pukenga wai, he pukenga tangata.”

Water is a pre-requisite for life. Water in all its many forms, as rivers, streams, springs, lakes, wetlands, acquifers and also as mist, fog and rain is valued as the life-blood of the lands we occupy. Sustenance, livelihoods, wellbeing, development is not possible without access to healthy water. Water is intrinsically a part of us (our physical bodies and spirituality), our lands, our culture and traditions that distinguish us as tangata whenua and kaitiaki.

“ ..toku awa, ko Waitakaro...toku pa, ko Hiruharama...toku hapu ko Te Aowera...”

Waterways were used for identifying boundaries and are intrinsically linked to our identity. This supported our systems governing use, access and management of the resources within an area. Waterways were also accessways facilitating transport and trade of goods, resources and services.

We have an intimate knowledge and relationship with our waters and their place in the wider environment. We continue to own the lands around our waters.

A view of the Tapuwaeroa Valley, with the Tapuwaeroa river in the foreground Wharekia and Hikurangi maunga.The histories of the mountains and rivers is interwoven into the history of Ngāti Porou and now forms part of the curriculum for Ngāti Porou Kura, Schools, Kōhanga and Puna Reo.

Placenames and our associated oral traditions offer a window into the traditional ways we managed our natural resources. Every stream, river, spring, wetland, lake has a name. An analysis of these provides a wealth of information about the nature of the particular resource, the customs and practices associated with the place and the ways whanau and hapu are connected thereby identifying who is best placed to continue kaitaki responsibilities, duties and privileges.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Table 1: An example of placename analysis of waterways and lands in the lower Mata River catchment

Name Description Relationship Waingakia Smaller tributary from Significant to history of Te Aitanga A Mate and Hikurangi into Te Mata. Sub- Ngati Ira battles. catchment is considered of high ecological value for its biodiversity.

Te Mata Major tributary to the Waiapu Te Mataa – where obsidian can be found, a hard River (catchment) rock

Makarika Headwaters near Te Puia “Kao kia mate au kia mate au i konei Springs. Te Ratahi lake at Te Kia rongo au ki nga kiokio e tangi mai ra i Puia Springs is part of this Matahiia stream catchment but the placement of SH 35 has Kia whakarongo ake hoki i nga wai taheke o te impacted the normal Mataa functioning of this ecosystem. Kia heke aku toto ki roto i nga wairatarata o te Makarika...”

He korero na Kokere Taniwha kia Tamokai

Makatote Main tributary for the Penu and Is also significant as its waters are used in the Hiruharama areas flowing into same way waitai is used. the Mata River. Has saline traces in its water.

Waikohu Landblock and stream tributary Holds a series of naturally formed lakes and of the Makatote entering wetlands before Korokota Urupa

Hikuku Wetland at Waikohu, Hapu significant resource for eeling. Traditonal Whareponga route between inland and coast at Whareponga

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

2: Ngā uri a Kokere e kaukau ana kei ngā wai taheke o te Mata, Summer 2015

Some examples of traditional and/ cultural management practices with regard to water include:  Securing and protecting the source of water supplies to homes, papakainga and marae – e.g native bush surrounding puna were fenced from stock and adjacent land use that could impact the quality of water.

 Scrub clearance was never to the streambank. A “buffer” was always maintained within the riparian zone of waterways and adjacent lands farmed.

 A knowledge of the waters within their whanau and hapu lands that were able to supply water through severe drought and adapting land use management in such seasons.

 Water conservation practices and maintenance of water storage/ supply infrastructure at homes.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Ngā Pakeke o Whareponga kei te hao ika kei Kirikiritatangi (Whareponga) pic 1

Ngā Pakeke o Waiapu kei te hao ika, mahi taruke me te whakamaroke tuna pics 2-4

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

5 Current State of our rohe and water ways

5.1 What are our catchments?

Rivers Locale/ Other Details

Oweka Matakaoa rohe

Wharekahika These northern river catchments while not as large as the river catchments further south will require specific management as the geology in Matakaoa is Karakatuwhero predominantly volcanic. The rivers flow and behave differently. Erosion is not Awatere as significant an issue as in the other catchments.

Waiapu Te Mata, Tapuaeroa, Mangaoporo, Poroporo, Maraehara and Te Wairoa are the major subcatchments or tributaries of the Waiapu River.

Is 1734 km2 in area. In 2002 around 2000 people lived within the catchment. This catchment includes the Waiapu River (total length ~130 km) and Mt Hikurangi (1752 m), both spiritually and culturally significant to Ngati Porou The Waiapu is formed by the joining of the Mata and Tapuaeroa Rivers, which originate in the headwaters of the steep Raukumara range. The rivers flow east and northeast to the Pacific Ocean. (Harmsworth & Warmenhoven, 2002).

Physical characteristics - The western side of the catchment is bound by the Raukumara ranges; with relief ranging from 1500 to 500 m, while the middle to lower part of the catchment is typically hilly, from 500 to 100 m, and then decreases in the east to lower flights of terraces and the floodplains near sea level. Average annual rainfall is 1600 mm/yr at the coast to >4000 mm/yr in the headwaters. (Harmsworth et. al, 2001).

Present vegetative cover is: Exotic forest (Pinus radiata) 26%, pasture 37%, native forest 21%, and about 12% in kanuka and manuka (scrub). About half the present pasture area could be considered erosion prone and unsustainable. Some cropping is carried out on the lower terraces and plains (ibid).

Mangahauini Tokomaru Bay

Uawanui Uawa – Tolaga Bay Includes the Hikuwai River tributary

Pakarae South of Uawa

Waiomoko Whangara

Waimata Shared catchment with Turanga Iwi

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

There are also other ‘coastal tributaries’ throughout the Ngati Porou rohe many are smaller stream catchments such as Orutua, Reporua, Waitekaha, Whareponga.

5.2 What are our key water bodies?

Te Puia is the only known geothermal resource within the Ngati Porou rohe. (From Pohatu et. al, 2010).

The waterways, pools and springs were highly valued and treated with utmost respect. This is clear from the very personal nature in which the water was used and the superior level of wellbeing and health that was derived from its use.

A number of hapū were able to access the abundant foods and natural resources of Te Puia. Statements made by local chiefs taken from minutes books of the Native Land Court in 1885 illustrate the value of the waters and food sources:

“the mineral enriched waters of Te Puia fed into surrounding lakes, streams, swamps and marshes. This habitat was home to many species of native birds and an abundance of eels” (Nepia, 1995).

Te Ratahi Iti (lake), Ratahi nui (swamp) and the Makarika Stream were a part of the surrounding water system and eel fishing was a highly regulated activity. Aruhe fernroot was also plentiful around Te Puia as the soil type was best suited to its growth. This was a highly valued natural food (staple). The area was not used by hapū for cultivation of crops such as taro or kūmara sweet potato.

While other hapū including Ngāti Rakai, Te Whanau a Rakairoa and Te Whanau a Te Kaipakihi all have traditional associations with the access and use of the natural resources of Te Puia Springs (Nepia, 1995), Te Whanau a Iritekura hold the mana whenua authority over the land.

5.3 What are the issues we face with our waterways and their management?

((From Harmsworth & Warmenhoven, 2002)

The Waiapu catchment can be described as highly degraded and modified, and exhibits an extensive and serious erosion problem. The catchment is prone to high intensity rainstorms and floods (Appendix 7). Many of the rivers are filled with sediment and classed as highly degraded. Few natural habitats remain. The catchment contains the cultural and spiritual icons of Mount Hikurangi (maunga) and the Waiapu River (awa), and is of great spiritual, cultural, physical and economic significance to Ngati Porou. The poor health and depletion of resources in the catchment is therefore of great concern. Anecdotal evidence also points to large sediment influxes affecting coastal and marine resources. Other issues include the low participation of iwi and hapu in research and resource management planning and policy.

Many of the environmental and cultural issues can be attributed to forest clearance over a century ago and repeated storm and flood events since then (Ministry for the Environment 1997). Storm and flooding events have greatly impacted on the lives, status and well-being of people living in the Waiapu area. In terms of spiritual and environmental issues, the decline of the health (mana, mauri) of the catchment and the river, the loss and degraded condition of natural resources in the catchment, along with impacts on the adjacent marine environment, require immediate attention.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Key environmental and cultural issues include:

 Highly degraded state of the Waiapu catchment, the loss and decline of the mauri (life force).  Highly degraded, erosion prone state of the catchment.  The impact of degradation on Ngāti Porou cultural values.  Loss of matauranga a Iwi and Hapū & Whanau knowledge and practices.  The low level of the community participation in catchment planning and management.  The need to increase awareness, interest, and human capacity in environmental and cultural research.

Some of the characteristics of the catchment that led to the above issues are:

 The catchment is prone to high intensity rainstorms and flooding.  The catchment has a complex mix of unstable rock types, which exacerbate erosion problems.  The Waiapu river has one of the highest sediment yields in the world.  Sediment is affecting the adjacent coastal and marine environment.

Below are four photo’s of the Pakihiroa Bridge between 1984 -2002 and demonstrate the impact of sediment yields from the Tapuwaeroa River that have built up as a consequence of the major flooding that occurred in 1986 with Cyclone Bola, erosion prone land and unstable rock. The Tapuwaeroa river merges with the Mata to become the Waiapu River, and this sediment is carried out to the mouth of the Waiapu River in Rangitukia.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

5.4 The Current Situation within the Ngati Porou Rohe

Ngati Porou has an interest in all aspects of fresh water management – cultural, social, spiritual and commercial. As a result Ngati Porou will be affected by all decisions made within its rohe in relation to freshwater management.

Within the Gisborne District, 47% of the population is Maori. The vast majority of this Maori population is Ngati Porou. This population rises to over 80% in the area immediately to the north of Gisborne and exceeds 90% in the areas around East Cape. Ngati Porou is therefore the community that is being represented in the development of any freshwater management regime.

Within Ngati Porou there are currently 48 functioning marae. These are cornerstones of the communities along the East Coast. Apart from fulfilling their traditional functions the marae act as community meeting places and reinforce the strong hapu identities within the communities in which they are situated.

Ngati Porou is a significant contributor to the local economy:

1. There is more than 100,000 hectares of Maori land within the Ngati Porou rohe.

2. Ngati Porou owned farms currently produce approximately 190,000 stock units per annum. These stock units are concentrated in a few larger farming operations and some smaller farms.

3. Ngati Porou has large forestry interests. In the next 15 years Ngati Porou owned forests will produce approximately 5 million metric tonnes of logs with an overall value of approximately $420 million.

4. The Ngati Porou Holding Company has also become the owner of approximately 20,000 hectares of former Crown forest licensed land within Ngati Porou. Over the coming years the forest licensee will progressively return parts of the licensed area to Ngati Porou control. The Ngati Porou Holding Company has committed to replanting the returned licensed areas and by the end of 2015 will have replanted close to 2,000 hectares.

5. The Ngati Porou Seafoods Group is active in all aspects of the fishing business in the Gisborne region. It owns and operates one of only two export licensed pack houses, has the only stand -alone retail operation and owns 4,000 metric tonnes of quota across a full range of species. Ngati Porou Seafoods Group is also exploring the possibility of land based aquaculture within Ngati Porou.

The Crown has consistently acknowledged the strength of Ngati Porou’s interests within its rohe:

a. In 2008 the hapu of Ngati Porou signed the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore and Seabed Deed with the Crown. In that Deed the Crown recognises “the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou” in relation to “ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou”.

b. In 2010 Ngati Porou signed a Deed of Settlement with the Crown to settle Ngati Porou’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. Under this Deed of Settlement:

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

i. The Crown acknowledges the special relationship Ngati Porou has with the Waiapu River and that, in attempting to provide for the effective administration of the East Coast’s natural resources, it vested control of that river in the Poverty Bay Catchment Board without consulting Ngati Porou.1

ii. The Crown acknowledges that deforestation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s fuelled significant acceleration of erosion and flooding that has had a devastating impact on Ngati Porou rohe wide. It also acknowledges that the measures it adopted to address this problem failed to effectively resolve it.2

iii. Provides statutory acknowledgements over the Waiapu and Uawa rivers and their respective tributaries. 3

iv. Provides statutory acknowledgements over the Waimata and Turanganui Rivers and their tributaries to the extent that those rivers and those tributaries are within the Ngati Porou area of interest under the Deed of Settlement.4

v. Provides for the strategic partnership with the Department of Conservation which includes the establishment of a separate section of the East Coast Bay of Plenty conservation management strategy that is to apply to nga paanga whenua o Ngati Porou.5

vi. Provides for a Ngati Porou-Crown Relationship Accord which identifies as one of its two priority areas erosion control within the Waiapu catchment.6 In doing so the accord provisions of the Deed of Settlement acknowledge that:7

“The Waiapu River is a symbol of Ngati Porou identity as related in the pepeha „Ko Hikurangi te Maunga, Ko Waiapu te Awa, Ko Ngati Porou te Iwi‟. It is of great spiritual, cultural, physical and economic significance to Ngati Porou. Ngati Porou hapu have long occupied the Waiapu River Valley, and worked, utilised and protected the River and the surrounding catchment area. They have maintained an undisturbed relationship with the River and the surrounding catchment area since the time of Maui.”

c. In April 2014 the Ministry for Primary Industries and Gisborne District Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Ngati Porou for the restoration of the Waiapu River. This was entered into at the same time as the Ngati Porou-Crown Relationship Accord was formally entered into by Ngati Porou and the Crown.

1 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement clause 3.20 2 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement clause 3.21 3 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement clause 5.1.1 (a) and (b) 4 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement clause 5.1.1(c) 5 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement clause 5.17 6 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement, General Matters Schedule, paragraph 3.5.1 7 Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement, General Matters Schedule, paragraph 3.11

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

6 Possible Mechanisms to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai Ngāti Porou has identified several key areas of influence to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

Whanau/Hapu

Iwi: Ngāti Porou Regional: Horouta Collective National: Iwi Leaders Group- Freshwater & RMA Iwi Chairs Forum

Central Government

Gisborne District Council

These levels will require tailored approaches and need to be simultaneously advanced. Ngāti Porou considered a range of mechanisms, including some used in other regions, which might be used in order to better recognise the Ngati Porou interests in freshwater. These are broadly summarised in the following section.

6.1 Joint Management Agreement through a Treaty Settlement

Several iwi have entered into JMA agreements as a part of their settlement packages with the crown over specific water bodies. Ngāti Tuwharetoa, Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Whanganui and Te Arawa all have such agreements with the Crown. The establishment of these JMAs is provided for in deeds of settlement rather than the Resource Management Act. An example of the scope of the JMAs is set out below.

44 Scope

 (1) For Ngati Tuwharetoa, a joint management agreement—

 (a) must cover no other subject matter than—

 (i) matters relating to the Waikato River and activities within its catchment affecting the Waikato River:

 (ii) matters relating to the waterways within Taupo Waters (as defined in clause 3 of the deed), if the local authority and the Trust agree to the matters being covered in the agreement:

 (b) must cover the matters referred to in section 45:

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

 (c) may cover additional duties, functions, or powers agreed under section 54.

These JMA’s enable joint decision making for specific areas. Some of these agreements have wider scope than others, but all are made up of equal numbers of members from the local authority and the iwi often with co-chairs from both organisations. The scope of the JMA is set, but there is room for negotiation as to what the councils and iwi can include in terms of decision making powers. The scope for the JMA for the Ngāti Raukawa JMA is as follows;

The Purpose of this JMA is to:

(a) Provide for an enduring relationship between the Parties through the shared exercise of functions, duties and powers under the Upper Waikato River Act and the RMA;

(b) Strengthen the commitment between the Council and the Trust to enter into a new era of co-governance and co-management over the Waikato River with the overarching purpose of restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations;

(i) Monitoring and enforcement activities (pursuant to s47 of the Upper Waikato River Act);

(ii) Preparing, reviewing, changing or varying a RMA Planning Document (pursuant to s48 of the Upper Waikato River Act); and

(iii) Duties, functions, or powers under Part 6 of the RMA in relation to applications for resource consents (pursuant to s49 of the Upper Waikato River Act).

(d) Provide for processes to explore whether customary activities can be carried out without the need for a statutory authorisation and whether customary activities can be provided for as permitted activities.

The major concern with this mechanism is that it sets a low benchmark for the councils to engage on. The prescription of the deed means it can be difficult to encourage councils to do more than what is outlined as the deed sets the JMA parameters. Decision making power still resides with councils in these mechanisms as the Joint Management Committees established under the JMA’s can only make recommendations to the full council. The council retains the discretion to agree with the recommendation, or send it back to the JMC to ask them to reshape their recommendation until the council accepts it. This falls short of what is required to recognise Ngati Porou’s freshwater interests. Accordingly, although a JMA might be a tool that is used to assist in recognising Ngati Porou’s interests, it is insufficient as the sole mechanism to recognise Ngati Porou’s interests.

6.2 Advisory Committees

Maori advisory committees are not formal committees of council. They are usually set up to provide advice to council on matters of concern to Maori. Processes for nominating and appointing members

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015 to advisory committees vary widely depending on the circumstances and priorities of those involved. These advisory committees can also cover softer arrangements like working parties and relationship agreements. The following section gives an overview of other non-binding relationship mechanisms.

Working parties and sub-committees can be established for a particular project or task (such as developing a specific policy), or with a view to longer term engagement on a range of issues.

Formal relationship agreements include Memoranda of Understanding or formal documents setting out the principles guiding the relationship, along with details on operational processes, conflict resolution, resourcing and evaluation.

Formal consultation processes may be established to fulfil particular legislative requirements, such as those under the RMA. Councils and tangata whenua in many areas have agreed formal consultation processes to provide for tangata whenua input into the development of Regional Policy Statements, Regional and District Plans, and for comment on resource consents. These often set out the information to be provided, timeframes and any associated resource requirements or agreements.

Maori focus groups – informal groups usually consisting of Maori who are experts in specialist areas and willing to give advice and feedback. The representatives on these groups are often recommended and/or approved by the council’s Maori Committee.

As these arrangements are non-binding and do not provide decision making powers, Ngāti Porou does not favour these mechanisms. Some of these are in place for Ngāti Porou and have been used in the past without success in the key areas that are important to Ngāti Porou.

6.3 Water Catchment Bodies

This suggested mechanism arises out of the New Zealand Māori Council litigation against the Crown over freshwater.

The Council claim Māori have:

 proprietary interests in water derived from the customary use of water bodies;  cultural interests in water derived from customary uses empathetic with cultural values for the maintenance of healthy water regimes; and  management interests in common with the general public for the maintenance of access to and sustainability of water bodies, deriving from customary stewardship.

The Council has supported proposals for the establishment of an independent commission which will deal with all water bodies, receive the revenue from commercial uses of water, monitor the levels, and set water prices. Funds will be used by the commission to improve, monitor and manage water use, quality and storage. The commission will also allocate a proportion of revenues to Maori in recognition of Maori proprietary interest and taking account of previous non-recognition. The same will apply to the particular needs of Maori in relation to water supplies for marae, papakainga, and general Maori housing, to engage Maori in the restoration of customary waterways, and to enable Maori to develop commercial operations utilising water.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Ngāti Porou does not support this proposal. Decision making should be made locally and no national entity should presume to be entitled to speak on their behalf Ngati Porou or its hapu. This would usurp the mana whakahaere o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.

Ngāti Porou have stated consistently that it has an aversion to the sale of water as the wai has its own mana. This process would encourage the sale of water.

6.4 Maori Seats

Local Government Electoral Amendment Act 2002

The Local Government Electoral Amendment Act 2002 allowed local bodies to adopt measures ‘to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes’.

Dedicated Māori seats elected by those on the Māori parliamentary roll are one means to increase Māori participation and share power in local government without compromising democratic principles. By 2011, however, few councils had adopted that approach and many regional and city councils had no Māori members at all. One exception was the Bay of Plenty Regional Council which, in 2004, introduced Māori seats elected by voters on the Māori electoral roll. The three Māori seats on the 13-member council roughly equated with the region’s Māori population. Waikato Regional Council now also has two Maori seats.

This avenue was considered an aspirational state for Ngāti Porou. It was seen as an important avenue towards more influence on the other responsibilities of the council. This was supported by Ngāti Porou but seen as something to be addressed at a later date.

1.9 FSSB Mechanisms

The Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore and Seabed Deed provides a number of mechanisms designed to recognise the mana of the hapu of Ngati Porou over the foreshore and seabed. These mechanisms are intended to operate together and provide a comprehensive set of legal rights and powers for Ngati Porou hapu over the foreshore and seabed within their respective rohe.

A number of the mechanisms used in the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore and Seabed Deed have potential application in relation to the management of freshwater. These could be applied either alongside arrangements under sections 33 and 36B of the RMA or as separate and stand-alone mechanisms provide for Ngati Porou freshwater interests.

The mechanisms in the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore and Seabed Deed that are most immediately relevant to the freshwater situation are:

1. The Statutory Overlay. 2. The Environmental Covenant. 3. The Permission Right.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

The Statutory Overlay recognises the special status of ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou to the hapū of Ngāti Porou. This status is to be recorded in key public documents such as district and regional plans and policy statements. The statutory overlay is also designed to provide for effective participation by hapū in consent processes under the RMZ.

A similar type of instrument could be used to acknowledge the special status of the waterways within Ngati Porou and to enhance the participation rights of Ngati Porou and Ngati Porou hapu in RMA processes.

The Environmental Covenant is designed to ensure that statutory plans prepared and administered by Gisborne District Council reflect the desires of the hapu of Ngati Porou in relation to the foreshore and seabed. It does this by requiring the Council to either “take into account”, or in customary title areas “recognise and provide for”, the issues, objectives, policies, rules or other methods set out in a statement by the hapū on the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources in the foreshore and seabed.

This arrangement could be extended to cover waterways within Ngati Porou.

The Permission Right is designed to apply in those areas of the foreshore and seabed where customary title is shown to exist. In these areas the hapu will have the right to either approve, or withhold approval, for any resource consent application that will have a significant adverse effect.

This type of mechanism could be applied either generally in relation to freshwater management or in those areas where it is agreed Ngati Porou have strong interests.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

7 A Possible Approach to Recognise Ngati Porou’s Interests Based on the consultations and other work carried out to date by Ngati Porou it is proposed that the recognition of Ngati Porou’s interests be addressed at a number of levels:

1. Whanau and Hapu Governance and Management. 2. Local Government. 3. The Ngati Porou Crown Relationship.

Some suggestions for recognition at each of these levels are set out below. This is by no means a final proposal. However, it does indicate options that could be pursued and is intended as a means of progressing matters. For example, Ngati Porou has already had discussions with the Gisborne District Council.

7.1 Whanau and Hapu Governance and Management

Hapu have the mana whakahaere over the waterways in their rohe, established through their manawhenua over the land and kaitiakitanga. As outlined earlier they have a range of rights and responsibilities to the health and use of the water. Underlying these are Te Mana o te Wai principles. Hapu want to be able to manage the water use and the management of water through a clustered approach focusing on protection, sustainable use and cultural integrity.

Initially using a clustered process whereby the seven hapu clusters co-create the freshwater management plan for their respective Rohenga Tipuna, this will then feed into the overarching Ngāti Porou Freshwater Management plan that will be adopted by the GDC and used for the co-manage of the Wai within the Ngāti Porou rohe. This will include the identification of specific water bodies specific to each hapu and how overlapping hapu interests will be dealt with.

The compilation of the rohe plans will be focused on policy, implementation and not on issue identification alone. This will assist to address the policies under which non-notified consents are determined.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

The following outline describes how each of these processes fit together.

•Rules, policies and Hapu Rohe methods that apply to all water users Plans and manage water in our rohe

Hapu •For specific Decision identified water bodies Making

Ngati Porou •Ngati Porou Freshwater Plan Decision •Hearings Making Decisions

7.2 Local Government

7.2.1 Section 33 Transfer of Powers

The RMA provides the ability for a council to transfer specific powers to an Iwi authority. Section 33 states that;

”A local authority may transfer any 1 or more of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act, except this power of transfer, to another public authority in accordance with this section”.

In effect, a Council, in this case the Gisborne District Council, can choose to transfer clearly identified powers to an Iwi Authority. For Ngāti Porou, the expectation would be that we would have the authority to decide on water take and discharge consents and plan changes regarding freshwater and this authority would be transferred from the Council to Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou.

The council would need to agree to the transferral and then carry out a special consultative procedure as prescribed in the Local Government Act which essentially means a proposal would have to be developed and then opened to the public for submission.

This mechanism most closely aligns with our key principles regarding Te Mana o te Wai. The responsibilities that come with a full transfer of powers are not underestimated by Ngāti Porou. We recognise that in order to protect, restore and sustainably manage our waterways for the betterment of our whenua, wai and people we need to have significant infrastructure associated with the our proposed system. We also recognise that increased capability, resourcing and innovative approaches to managing the water in a Ngāti Porou framework for the benefit of all water users in the Ngāti Porou rohe will take some time to establish. Ngāti Porou fully expects to be in this position within 5 years

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015 and expect a transitional process of a section 36b transferral of powers be executed to allow co- governance in the interim.

7.3 Section 36B Joint Management Agreements

7.3.1 Effect of Section 36B The Act provides a framework for public authorities and iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū for RMA purposes to enter into joint management agreements about natural or physical resources (sections 36B-E).

A joint management agreement may provide for the joint performance or exercise of any function, power or duty under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA, which includes the management of natural or physical resources. It may apply to the whole or part of a district or region.

The JMA has the ability to hear applications from applicants for notified water takes and decide on those applications through a representation of GDC and Ngāti Porou commissioners. Prior to the establishment of the JMA, all applications would have been heard by the GDC Councillors only. Under the Resource Management Act, any application for resource consent is to be notified if the effects are deemed to be no more than minor or at the request of the applicant. For the majority of smaller applications, it is likely that decisions will still be approved by delegated authority and not have to go through the notified process.

The new joint panel will provide for an enhanced recognition of the relationship, culture and traditions that Ngāti Porou has with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga and these matters will be fully considered in the decision making process.

7.3.2 Scope of the JMA The scope of the JMA should cover all those notified resource consent decisions regarding water, private and public plan changes relating to the Ngāti Porou rohe. The JMA will have some areas of overlap and these should be determined with other neighbouring Iwi. The JMA is only used for notified resource consent applications and private plan changes on multiple owned Māori Land.

7.3.3 Proposed Joint Management Agreement between Ngati Porou and the GDC To undertake these specified functions the JMA provides for the establishment of a Joint Management Panel (JMP) comprising three representatives each from Ngati Porou and the Gisborne District Council. Ngati Porou will also provide the chair. The JMA will specify protocols for the replacement of JMP representatives where potential conflict of interest situations occur. This JMP will make decisions over the notified consent applications and will be guided by the Ngati Porou Freshwater Management plan.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Ngati Porou 4 Reps Joint Management Panel

GDC 3 Reps

7.3.4 Representation on the JMA Decision Making Body The JMP will be made up of commissioners appointed by the Council and by Ngāti Porou hapu through agreed processes.

7.3.5 Appropriate Qualifications and Skills It is recommended that all representatives on the JMP be environmental commissioners. This should also include Ngāti Porou appointees, councillors and independent commissioners. These representatives should hold appropriate qualifications and training and have completed the “Making Good Decisions” Programme for RMA decision-makers. Ngāti Porou representatives should also hold the appropriate skills in the area of experience with Maori resource management matters and tikanga, kawa and an understanding of the Ngāti Porou Freshwater Management Plan.

The Crown, GDC and Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou will need to continue to support the accreditation of representatives and they should also ensure that there are those on the potential pool of representatives that do not affiliate to Ngāti Porou to ensure that where there are perceived conflicts of interests with our own Ngāti Porou representatives, we can efficiently supply others with the appropriate skills.

7.3.6 Financial Implications The JMA should restrict the Ngāti Porou representatives to the same charge out rate as councillors. In the negotiation for the Ngāti Porou/GDC JMA it is recommended that the rate be to the level of an independent commissioner.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

8 The Ngāti Porou and Crown Relationship The Crown has an important role in giving effect to our Te Mana o te Wai principles.

A full section 33 transferral of powers will need to go to through the special consultation process under the RMA and in the current environment the chances of having a section 33 delegaton approved is low. Ngāti Porou will be seeking the support from the Crown to direct GDC to enable a section 33 to recognise our rights and interests in our wai. The Crown will be asked also to support a 36B JMA as one of the interim steps towards achieving a better recognition of Ngati Porou’s interests.

In addition to the use of the mechanisms under sections 33 and 36B of the RMA the Crown has the ability to look more widely at how the interests of Ngati Porou might best be recognised. This enables the Crown to consider mechanisms other than sections 33 and 36B. The mechanisms set out in the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed are examples that might therefore be appropriate to consider in the freshwater context.

Another key area for the Crown is in the support for research on the nature, characteristics and size of the water resource in the Ngāti Porou rohe. GDC has indicated that there is very little funding for the research required. The gaps in information make it extremely difficult for the water to be managed in an efficient way for all communities who live in the rohe. Support for resourcing for this work will be requested as we co-develop a list of required technical information with GDC and Ngāti Porou hapu.

Further resourcing to support Ngāti Porou hapu to build the infrastructure required to be engaged at a partnership level will need to be accessed. An environmental strategy unit will require new and reallocated funding from GDC and the Crown to ensure that the mechanisms are effective and not set up to fail.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

9 Conclusion Ngāti Porou will focus on four primary areas of engagement over the next twelve months as they seek to establish the mechanisms that enable them to provide leadership and stewardship for the Wai in their rohe, which is consistent with Te Mana o Te Wai and Toitu Ngāti Porou.

The four areas of engagement are;

 Hapū capability and capacity development for the purposes of completing their freshwater management plans and growing their governance and management capacity  Working with the GDC staff to prepare an application for a s26B within the next 12 months conditional on acceptance that Ngāti Porou will be seeking a s33 within 5 years  Continued collaboration with the HIC and engagement with the ILG-FW & RMA to; o inform and influence government freshwater and RMA policies and legislation o manage any risks posed to the ability of Ngāti Porou to negotiate its own rights and interests in the Wai, based on the Te Mana o Te Wai and Toitu Ngāti Porou frameworks.

Ngāti Porou will engage with CRI’s , Government Agencies and the GDC to complete a thorough stocktake of the Wai within the Ngāti Porou rohe, to establish benchmarks and inform ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou Freshwater Management Plans

Ngāti Porou appreciated the opportunity to participate in this Case Study because it has focused their attentions on the importance of ‘getting their own house in order’ to be able to lead the freshwater management changes in their rohe including co-writing freshwater management plans and co- designing freshwater management policies, systems and processes. They now have a better understanding of the role of the ILG-FW & RMA and the Horouta Iwi Collective, and appreciate the opportunities and risks both pose.

While having some appreciation of the limited data, information and resources that the GDC has on freshwater catchments within the Ngāti Porou rohe, they had not appreciated the extent of those limitations. Having now established a constuctive dialogue with GDC Resource Management , Planning and Regulatory staff , Ngāti Porou and the GDC staff are keen to work together to establish a work plan for building and growing the freshwater evidence, data and information base for the Ngāti Porou rohe.

Ngāti Porou unanimously supported the pursuit of a s26B and s33, as appropriate mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to their rights and interests. This proposition has been tested with GDC staff and they have agreed to work with Ngāti Porou to prepare a proposal outlining Ngāti Porou’s aspirations for Councils consideration and decision.

Recognising the reluctance of Local Authorities to venture too much out of their comfort zone in giving effect to the RMA, Ngāti Porou would seek to engage directly with Central Government to ensure they created an enabling environment that properly incentivised and supported Local Government to work proactively and constuctively with Ngati Porou to enact the appropriate freshwater management regimes for their rohe/region.

E hoki koe ki o maunga ki o awa, kia puehutia e ngā hau o Tawhirimatea Return to your mountains and rivers so that you will be rejuvenated by the winds and waters of Tawhirimatea.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

10 Appendices: Minutes Record of Meeting

Ngati Porou Wai Maori Hui Rohenga Tipuna 6 (Round Two)

Wednesday 7 January 2015, Pakirikiri Marae, Tokomaru Bay 6pm

Present: Karen Pewhairangi, Kody Pewhairangi, Kelly Houia, Dianne Houia, Kahutia Pewhairangi, Destiny Barbarich, Keriana Wilcox Taylor, Jim Pavarno, Pita Paul, Tate Pewhairangi, Lois McCarthy Robinson, Merekaraka Pewhairangi, Margaret Smith, Graham Smith.

Project Team: S Parata, A Houkamau, R Parata, T Porou, R Paenga

Apologies: W Te Aho, M Mahuika, P Pohatu

Hapu: Te Whanau a Ruataupare ki Tokomaru, Te Whanau a Te Aotawarirangi

Marae: Tuatini, Pakirikiri, Waiparapara

Karakia: S Parata

Mihimihi: S Parata

1. Delivery of Presentation: (copy of presentation attached)

Note S Parata presented background information and summary of our hui outcomes from first round of Wai Maori hui (slides 1-6).

T Porou presented current technical space Ngati Porou is faced with, what impacts us now and operationally how we can achieve rights and interests identified by Ngati Porou hapu (slides 7-26).

S Parata concluded presentation handing back to hapu to make formal resolutions of their position going forward (slide 27).

1.1 Key Points Made during Presentation:

1.1.1 This round of hui is the Sequel to the nga hapu o Ngati Porou WaiMaori hui held in late October-early November 2014,

1.1.2 The Iwi Leaders adopted Te Mana o Te Wai at a National Hui on WaiMaori held at Hopuhopu in April 2011.Ngati Porou have aligned the Te Mana o te Wai with the Toitu Ngati Porou Framework expressed in our FSSB Deed of Agreement and Deed of Settlement and adopted it as the foundational principles for expressing our relationship with the wai, its relationship with us and our co- dependence. The Government has also adopted Te Mana o Te Wai as the

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

overarching principles for National Freshwater Policy Statement and the National Objectives Framework

1.1.3 The unique position that Ngati Porou enjoys provides us with a strong negotiation position in terms of determining the freshwater management plans for the Catchments in our rohe and a major say in the decision making about the freshwater in our rohe and its management. Ngati Porou are the largest group of landowners in our rohe, we are owners and shareholders of the farms and forests in our rohe, we own most of the businesses and entities in our rohe including; single tribal authority, the radio station, rugby team, majority of businesses, all the Marae. In other words we are not only the major landowners and business owners we are also the overwhelming majority within the communities we live. This unique position should be provided for at all decision making levels.

1.1.4 T Porou has had extensive resource management and environmental planning experience, working with a number of other iwi. We can learn from the experiences of other iwi and use this as a guide for us in determining what freshwater management options would be suitable for us. She noted that other iwi have pursued an ownership relationship with water which Ngati Porou are not pursuing as a consequence of the first round of consultation hui and the view that the Wai has its own mana and our relationship with the wai should not be expressed in terms such as ownership, but rather mana whakahaere and kaitiakitanga

1.1.5 While we have discussed our unique position and that our Rights and Interests in WaiMaori can be acknowledged and given effect to by central and local Government, we recognise that we will need to clearly articulate and evidence our position as part of our discussions and negotiations with the Crown and Local Government. We also appreciate that the practicalities, how we express and implement our rights and interests needs a longer, intensive discussion with our hapu on strategy and implementation. We are keen to hear your thoughts and feedback.

1.1.6 Another unique factor that we should be cognisant of, is that the Gisborne District Council (GDC) is the only council in NZ that does not have a freshwater management system in place; there is a draft plan which purports to cover the entire region but only has detailed information on the Waipaoa catchment. Ngati Porou is the only iwi that does not have a regional water plan that applies to our rohe. The two freshwater catchments that the GDC proposes to cover in their Freshwater Management Plan in the Ngati Porou rohe are the Uawa River and Waiapu River. To date they have not started on these catchment plans

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Note catchment maps for Uawa and Waiapu were circulated to hui attendees. Mangahauini and other coastal catchments are not reflected in the two proposed catchment maps.

1.1.7 Practically hapu should be involved at all levels because, all the water bodies in these catchments are located on our lands. The GDC and Ngati Porou don’t know how much water is in these two catchments, as the GDC has not undertaken any in-depth data collection and analysis. However whanau and hapu have quite a lot of information on the history, significance and traditional uses of the WaiMaori in their rohe. There is minimal information on water takes and discharges and both are equally as important.

1.1.8 Tina demonstrated how water allocation generally occurs, firstly a take for municipal use (drinking) is assigned, a take for environmental purposes is assigned and the balance is available on a contestable basis for development including irrigation. To date a lot of the water take consents approved have been on the basis of first in first served. Although the government has stated that no one owns water, it is possible to trade /sell water, if a water consent holder has surplus water and another person wishes to access and use some of that water. In Turanga the length of water consent/permits is 5 years with a possible extension of up to 25 years. In Turanga there are also cases where leaseholders have secured water take consents as part of their lease of specific land blocks and taken the water take consents with them on expiration of the lease, rather than pass them on to the landowner. These are pitfalls that we need to be mindful of to ensure our whanau and hapu are prepared and aware of the potential impact and effect of water management systems that are introduced and/or imposed on us. The good news is that a freshwater management system has not been introduced in our rohe yet and we have time to get organised and design the freshwater management system that will apply within our rohe.

1.1.9 The seven potential mechanisms for enabling nga hapu of Ngati Porou to give effect to our rights and interests were presented and explained in more detail.

a) JMA under Section 36B under RMA described in 1.1.10 below. b) JMA by treaty settlement not preferred requires support of council to enact c) Section 33 under RMA, described in 1.1.11 d) Advisory Committees, makes recommendations GDC previously had one it still subordinate to council. e) Water Catchment Bodies has an economic focus that sale and profit from water would be used to reinvest in the maintenance of catchment. Usually democratically elected which does not work for us. f) Maori Seats do work however it is still a political decision to get Maori Seats. g) Explicit recognition of our mana over our waterways similar to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.1.10 Joint Management Agreement JMA under S36 of RMA achieved by Tuwharetoa. Tina described the Tuwharetoa arrangement whereby the JMA consists of half iwi and half council delegates with an independent chair. She highlighted the pros and cons of all the potential mechanisms.

1.1.11 To date no iwi in the country has achieved a JMA under section 33 of the RMA, which would be the ultimate and preferred mechanism for us. Tina advised that from her observation and experience in implementing some of the mechanisms listed, they fall short of expectations and tend to operate at the minimum level required rather than striving to operate at the ultimate level. Furthermore, processes dependent on a democratic vote to appoint representatives does not favour Iwi. Therefore to give full expression to our aspirations and in keeping with our unique position, Ngati Porou should seek a JMA under sect 33 of the RMA.

1.1.12 Hapu need to be actively engaged and leading the writing of their Freshwater management plans which can then be collated into an iwi level plan. The JMA would have the responsibility for managing and overseeing the implementation of the plan. Hapu should be growing their capacity and capability for the long term management and future proofing of our wai.

1.1.12 In terms of timeframes we have two weeks to conduct hui and write up our case study in a report which will be included as a section in a joint report from the Horouta collective, Te Whanau a Apanui Ngati Porou and the 3 Iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa. By sharing our findings we will gain collective leverage and support. However Ngati Porou reserves the right to pursue its own negotiations with the Crown, based on our understanding of our unique position and interests as Ngati Porou. We will use this case-study to propose a realistic way forward for Ngati Porou in terms of freshwater management and identify the work-streams needed to achieve the freshwater management mechanism that we are seeking.

1.2 Feedback and Questions from Hapu Members:

Understanding current system

1.2.1 Question: Can I take water from any stream in Ngati Porou as long as I meet council requirements?

Answer: Yes you can currently go to the GDC and apply for a water take (resource consent) stating your purpose and as long as you meet their water quality and discharge standards, you will be given a water take consent. The GDC has recently developed a draft freshwater management plan but it only covers the Waipaoa catchment.

1.2.2 Discussion: Majority of attendees were shocked by the significant water take permit for Pouariki Station 3456 cubic metres p/day. This was a significant

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

increase on the permitted water take for the five other water take consents within the Ngati Porou rohe.

Question: Tate queried the permit for Pouariki and asked when that began.

Answer: Unsure of start date however the expiry date is June 2018. The current system favours those who understand how the system works and it currently works on first in first serve basis, currently there is no provision for whanau and hapu to be involved in the decision making process around water take consents /issuing permits.

1.2.3 Question: Lois queried how water will be measured and how GDC can issue permits without knowing how much water there is to begin with.

Answer: Water meters will be installed to measure water in the future. The GDC issue permits because they have the authority and they are responsible for water management in our rohe. However they have very little information on water quantity and quality in our rohe.

1.2.4 Question: Paul – does the LTCCP have influence over decision making in terms of whānau and hapu submissions on this issue? When would a freshwater management plan come into effect? He advised that the water supply at Mangatuna is managed and owned by two growers in Whakatane.

Answer: – the draft plan will come into effect once the final plan has been publically notified and all appeals have been exhausted – which could possibly be 6 months. As it currently stands, the draft plan requires water users to tell the GDC how much water they are using.

1.2.5 Discussion: Jim what if I don’t want to comply with the expectations of the councils Freshwater Management Plan. What if I simply refuse to obey their request for information on how much water I am using? Along the coast today there will be many people who take water from small springs and rainwater with no record or reference of that take. There will be a lot of examples of this practise happening on the Coast.

Understanding Cultural View

1.2.6 Discussion: Karen Pewhairangi - where is the Māori world-view in this, there are waterways of high cultural significance and that is the key to determining who has rights to the take.

We can’t properly consider environmental management of water catchments because whose definition of environmental management are we working from? Unless we as hapu as Ngati Porou agree what our catchment benchmarks are council should not expect us to inform their plan.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.2.7 Discussion: Tate - we have long had the right as whanau and hapu over these lands and the water on it, these types of processes aka freshwater management plans are a further attempt to diminish our rights. We must always promote our own kaupapa rights otherwise we will always be on the back foot.

1.2.8 Discussion: Jim Pavarno - Tuatini Marae water comes from a spring (Hinehou) on my land, the council have no say about it at the moment. With these proposed changes and their draft freshwater management plan they will tell us how we should distribute water from our spring. I personally resent this it makes me feel like putting a lock on the gate.

Discussion: - this is why we want to lead, inform, co-create, if not create outright the GDC Freshwater management Plan for the Uawa and Waiapu catchments.

1.2.9 Discussion: Karen - we have experienced frustrations with the GDC and their understanding of our Ngati Porou hapu principles. The FSSB deed even though it is in place the GDC are still lacking in their understanding and application of the frameworks. These are the same principles and framework that we are using for our Wai Maori approach.

Discussion: It could be that this kaupapa complements and assists the implementation of our FSSB Deed of Agreement

1.2.10 Discussion: Paul – Wai Maori is the way we look at water, it has many dimensions from a cultural perspective including; drinking water, waste water, storm water, swimming water, water for kai. The GDC (council) does not have that holistic perspective. We can add value to their world view by sharing our understanding and perspective with them.

Understanding Trade-ability issues

1.2.11 Discussion: Graham - we need to refuse the tradability aspect to permitting. We need to measure the water first, give permit holders only the amount that they need and just that. We need to state the purpose, the need and uses of waimaori and these need to be written into our plan. We must ban the sale of surplus water.

1.2.12 Discussion: - our principles have always been that we have water and we share it with others who need it, no more and no less.

1.2.13 Discussion: - practically the Crowns statement “water isn’t owned by anyone” isn’t quite accurate because it is already being traded. There is also concern because the Waipaoa is over allocated.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.2.14 Discussion: Tate - we should look at Te Whanau a Ruataupare or our landowners as the authority. Water supply for Waiparapara and Pakirikiri Marae plus 112 whanau comes from Marotiri, the Marae sell the right to connect to the water supply to our whanau.

Understanding national policy impacts

1.2.15 Question: Paul - how strong are we at the legislative level-kaupapa Maori vs RMA. Also how are proposed changes to RMA going to affect us?

Answer: - there are no potential drastic changes to the sections of RMA which affect Maori.

Answer: – ILG-Freshwater & RMA and their technical advisors have been actively engaged in the development of national freshwater policies and in inputting into the proposed amendments to the RMA. The ILG were against collapsing Sec 6 & 7 of RMA as per the pre Oct 2014 elections proposed amendments. Current Minister for the Environment is having a re-think about the need to collapse sections 6 & 7 of the RMA

Revisiting Hapu Mechanisms

1.2.16 Discussion: Karen – we need to remember hapu are limited in capacity and need to consider carefully their ability to sustain their engagement and participation. How can we ensure at the ground level we are supported to be proactive in contributing to this kaupapa. Hapu members working on these kaupapa are volunteers and generally have jobs and limited time available to apply themselves to these tasks. We need to work out how we can resource our hapu to a) get the work done and b) build capability. We worked on the FSSB hapu negotiations, hapu fisheries management plan but could only go so far. We also encountered difficulties in determining the appropriate hapū /cluster structures and the viability of these structures and in the end a number of our developments have fizzled out, because we do not have the necessary structures and resources.

1.2.17 Discussion: – this is a good time to look at the hapu/cluster structures that are in place at the moment and how they are operating. Such as Tokomaru Bay Hapu Social Services, FSSB & fisheries hapu committees, Mataahu ki Kokorunui legal entity, Matauranga committee, Marae committees. Perhaps this process will give us a needed boost to review existing hapū /cluster arrangements and identify appropriate arrangements, that work for us, because they are premised on how we currently, if not traditionally, organise ourselves and the arrangement is well understood and practical ,

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Other comments

1.2.18 Discussion: Karen - we need to push and have more expectation that the NP FSSB Deed of Settlement provisions are being taken on board by council.

1.2.19 Discussion: Graham - unless Ngati Porou have right of veto it will be very difficult to be part of any council process. Selwyn noted it was a recommendation from the first round of hui.

2 Resolutions

2.1 Motion: That we agree and endorse the principals detailed in the presentation Te Mana o Te Wai and Ngati Porou Framework Moved: Karen Pewhairangi Second: Lois McCarthy Robinson CARRIED

2.2 Motion: That we oppose the current GDC Draft Fresh Water Management strategy based on the fact that we did not co create it. Moved: Karen Pewhairangi Second: Jim Pavarno CARRIED

2.3 Motion: That we support the Ngati Porou position and endorse that our rights of decision making be pursued under Section 33 of the RMA. Moved: Tate Pewhairangi Second: Lois McCarthy CARRIED

2.4 Motion: That water rights not be tradable as part of our water allocation process. Moved: Graham Smith Second: Karen Pewhairangi CARRIED

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Record of Meeting

Ngati Porou Wai Maori Hui Rohenga Tipuna 1 (Round Two)

Thursday 8 January 2015, Te Poho o Rawiri Marae, Gisborne 6pm

Present: Albie Gibson, Boydie Pohoiwi, Jennifer Pere-Heta, Tapita Ihimaera-Smiler, Peter Fox, Joshua Taylor, Keriana Wilcox-Taylor, Nicky Searancke, Ingrid Searancke, Beth Tupara Katene, Perak Nikora, Tash Irwin, Tahea Gibson, Anahera Irwin, Riley- James Broughton, Hine Wharehinga

Hapū : Ngāti Oneone, Ngāti Kanohi, Ngāti Wakarara, Te Aitanga a Hauiti, Ngāti Horowai

Project Team: S Parata, A Houkamau, R Parata, T Porou, R Paenga

Apologies: W Te Aho, M Mahuika, P Pohatu

Karakia: S Parata

Mihimihi: S Parata

2. Delivery of Presentation: (copy of presentation attached)

Note S Parata opened presentation and A Houkamau presented background information and summary of our hui outcomes from first round of the Ngati Porou Wai Maori hui. (slides 1-6).

T Porou presented current technical space Ngati Porou is faced with, what impacts us now and operationally how we can achieve rights and interests identified by Ngati Porou hapu (slides 7-26).

S Parata concluded presentation handing back to hapu to make formal resolutions of their position going forward (slide 27).

2.1 Key Points Made during Presentation:

1.1.1 The Horouta Collective (HC) members are; Te Whanau a Apanui, Ngati Porou and the 3 Iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa. The HC were selected by the ILG-Freshwater & RMA to provide one of four case studies, documenting Iwi/hapu rights & interests in Waimaori (Freshwater) and the mechanisms they believed would recognise and give effect to their rights and interests. The Case Studies would be presented to the ILG-Freshwater & RMA, prior to Waitangi 2015 and then to the Iwi Chairs Forum at Waitangi. The HC Iwi groupings (Whanau a Apanui, Ngati Porou and the 3 Iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa’s) are currently conducting hapu hui to gather feedback and direction from hapu to inform their respective reports. The HC will prepare 2 reports, containing 3 sections that will

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

enable each of the Iwi groupings to; describe the specific contexts, freshwater management regimes currently in place or not, the rights and interests in WaiMaori of the hapū /iwi and preferred mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to hapū /iwi rights and interests. The HC will meet with members of the ILG-Freshwater & RMA at 11.30am on 19 January at Te Poho o Rawiri, where preliminary summaries and recommendations pertaining to the case studies will be presented.

1.1.2 Ngati Porou has developed a set of high level principles which will guide us in the development of our hapu rights and interests in Waimaori and in determining the appropriate mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to them. The Ngati Porou Framework is based on the Iwi Leaders, Te Mana o Te Wai principles and the guiding principles developed for the Nga hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore & Seabed Deed of Agreement.

1.1.3 The Ngati Porou position (majority of people resident in our rohe, majority of land owned by us, majority of businesses owned, majority of rates paid by us) is unique and gives us significant political, social and economic leverage. Details of the Ngati Porou profile were queried by P Nikora and the points she raised are summarised in 1.2.3. The rights and interests described in this presentation are taken from the first round of hui with Ngati Porou whanau and hapu. Copies of the summary presentation from the first round of hui were made available.

1.1.4 T Porou stated that it is accurate that we have specific rights and interests in wai, however on a practical level the challenge for us will be how these rights and interests can be given effect/implemented. We are up for the ‘fight to get to the table’, but when we get to the table we need to ensure we have something to bring to the table, e.g. be prepared to put up alternatives/ other options that we will be able to implement. Her presentation focused on options for turning our Mana o te Wai/ Toitu Ngāti Porou principles into practical solutions and applications.

1.1.5 The Waiapu river has the second highest river sediment discharge in the world. As Ngati Porou whanau, hapu and iwi we are faced with every type of water use issue across Environmental, Economic, Social, Cultural and Political domains, we have a responsibility and a desire to improve our water care system, to develop our land in a sustainable manner, to benefit from knowledge of Waimaori, to practice our longstanding traditions and ultimately be key decision makers over the use, care and monitoring of our wai. Ngati Porou have not pursued ownership over the wai as this has not been a major issue of concern for our people, primarily because they accept the Te Mana o te Wai/ Toitu Ngāti Porou frameworks and, they are clear that their relationship with the Wai is not clearly or accurately reflected in terms of pākehā concepts of ‘ownership’.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.1.6 Our whanau, hapu and Iwi are directly impacted upon by the wai within their whānau, hapū , iwi spheres of influence (domains, rohe) and have maintained an ongoing relationship and association with the various waimaori (freshwater bodies) within their rohe and therefore whānau, hapu & iwi have a right to be involved in its management. Unitary or Regional councils have the delegated authority to manage freshwater and the mechanism that councils use to manage water (setting and monitoring;use, take, and quality standards) is generally described in a Local/Regional Fresh Water Management Plan. There is currently no fresh water management system and plan for the Ngati Porou rohe but there is a draft plan that is up for consideration, that primarily focuses on the Waipaoa Catchment. The key concerns about the current GDC draft freshwater management plan are; Ngati Porou were not consulted or involved in the drafting of the plan and there are significant information gaps including, data on quantity and quality. The GDC are the last council in the country to develop a Fresh Water Management System. The current proposal in their draft freshwater management plan is the development of two catchment plans for the Ngati Porou rohe, the Uawa river catchment plan and Waiapu river catchment plant. Ngati Porou also needs to look at the interface with Marine and Coastal Plans.

Note GDC catchment maps for Uawa and Waiapu, provided by the GDC were distributed to hui attendees.

1.1.7 Tina demonstrated the general rules applying to water allocation, advising that the first take is for municipal (drinking) purposes, a take is set aside for environmental purposes and the balance is available on a contestable basis for developmental purposes, including economic.

1.1.8 While the Government has publicly stated that no one owns water, the reality is that water is a tradable commodity and people who have already received water take consents, can sell surplus water take. She described the steps in the permitting process that is being applied in the GDC region, the length of permits are 5years with possible extensions up to 25 years. She advised that currently there are only 6 existing water take consents in the Ngati Porou rohe, slide 15 identifies who has water take consents, how much water they can take and the consent term. The upshot for Ngati Porou is that given the limited application of the water take system in our rohe, we have the ability to lead, co-create, if not solely design and create a freshwater management system that would be appropriate for our rohe. As part of the design of the system, we will have to develop a set of rules and policies that will be logical, robust and transparent and while they need to address today’s issues, challenges and opportunities they need to also be cognisant of future requirements, needs and opportunities and enable us to safeguard the wai for the future.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.1.9 The seven potential mechanisms for enabling nga hapu of Ngati Porou to give effect to our rights and interests were presented and explained in more detail.

h) JMA under Section 36B under RMA described in 1.1.10b i) JMA by treaty settlement not preferred requires support of council to enact described in 1.1.10a j) Section 33 under RMA, described in 1.1.11 k) Advisory Committees, makes recommendations GDC previously had one it still subordinate to council. l) Water Catchment Bodies has an economic focus that sale and profit from water would be used to reinvest in the maintenance of catchment. Usually democratically elected which does not work for us. m) Maori Seats do work however it is still a political decision to get Maori Seats. n) Explicit recognition of our mana over our waterways similar to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed.

1.1.10 Tina also provided some examples of Iwi that have negotiated various arrangements with the Crown to recognise their unique relationship with the wai and the unique status of the wai.

a) The Whanganui iwi have a JMA via MOU and Accords as part of their Whanganui River treaty settlement. Settlement documentation includes an acknowledgement by the Crown of the rivers special character and nga iwi o Whanganui’s relationship with the awa. ‘Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au’,

b) Tuwharetoa own the bed of lake Taupo and are able to charge rent to users (Tourist operators, fishers etc) and they are also entitled to royalties.

1.1.11 A JMA Under section 33 of the RMA has never been achieved by any iwi yet, despite the provision being in place since the introduction of the RMA in 1992. Section 33 enables the Local Council to delegate responsibility for Freshwater management to another entity, including Iwi. If Ngati Porou decides to go down this pathway, we will need to be proactive in lobbying

- Local Councillors to get their political support for the enactment of section 33

- Local Council Staff to gain their support for our iwi freshwater management plan and thereby ensuring that the JMA and the freshwater management plan receive the necessary attention and resources to ensure successful implementation and management.

Pursuit of Section 33 JMA will be challenging, however it is the preferred mechanism because it is the mechanism that is the most consistent with the Toitu Ngati Porou/Te Mana o te Wai Frameworks

- Ngati Porou will need to be considered and disciplined in who we appoint to the JMA. We need to ensure that the members of the JMA have the necessary

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

knowledge, expertise and skills including; Ngati Porou tikanga, Good Governance, Resource Management and Environmental Management.

2.2 Feedback and Questions from Hapu Members

Understanding Principles and Unique Positon

1.2.1 Question: Peter Fox – in regards to the Mana o te Wai and Ngati Porou Framework principles these have always been our principles, what are our partners doing to acknowledge this?

Answer: - the Government have incorporated the Te Mana o Te Wai in the National Policy Statement (NPS) and National Objectives Framework (NOF) for Freshwater

Note it might be useful to translate the Te Mana o Te Wai and Ngati Porou Framework into English so that it is understood by the Crown and other non Ngati Porou people.

1.2.2 Question: Perak Nikora - How are they (Crown) giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai?

Answer: - Government are adopting Te Mana o te Wai in the NPS, in Treaty Settlements some iwi have negotiated specific provisions within their settlements to enable them to have a greater say in freshwater planning and management. The Crown has publicly stated that it recognises that some iwi and hapu have rights and interests in specific water-bodies in their rohe. Note our focus is building our body of evidence to assert our position and to demonstrate what that looks like.

Note the following item 1.2.3 is a summary of concerns raised by P Nikora about injustices relating to council rating system, permitting system, RMA reform process, fresh water management system, failure by Government to acknowledge rights of existing hapu infrastructure such as Marae.

1.2.3 Discussion: Perak - under Ture Whenua Maori Act it is possible to be omitted from rate paying on unproductive multiply owned Maori land. We are not utilising Te Ture Whenua Act to its full power, land and water are linked. The principle is tied up in the value of the land and what that means for us as tangata whenua. There are statements that the East Coast has a lot of unproductive land which could be eligible for rates remission the rating system has been imposed on us by those who do not understand or respect the mana whenua, mana moana relationship we have with our taonga through whakapapa.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

There was an incident relating to discharge by Juken Nissho into the stream with no consultation by council with the tangata whenua.

P Nikora sought assurances about the RMA reforms and asked for a guarantee that the IAG who were working on Freshwater and RMA reforms were completely conversant with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. She reiterated her point that land and water must be dealt with hand in hand. We should be asserting the rights that our land ownership affords us and this needs to be recognised in any Government proposals about water.

P Nikora also thought that we and council should be using and consulting existing legal infrastructure such as Marae (who have charters) to gather hapu positions and perspectives on this issues. She was not happy that the Horouta collective have gone outside these bodies to conduct this process.

P.Nikora’s comments were received, and responded to and she was assured that her views and concerns would be recorded in the record of this hui. Direction was sought from other hui attendees as to whether Perak’s views were reflective of their collective views. They were not, with people advising that the issues raised by Perak while related to the subject of the hui were not the focus of this hui. Other views expressed included that while some Marae had Charters, not all Marae did, nor did all Marae want or require them, because in their view the practice of manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga was more important than words on a piece of paper.

1.2.4 Question: Beth – asked what are the details of the case study and timeframe

Answer: – The HC case study would be submitted to the ILG-FW & RMS on 19 January 2015 form part of the report to the ILG-FW & RMA on the 28 Jan, be included in the reports to the Iwi Chairs Forum (ICF) on 4-5 Feb at Kerikeri and form part of the overall report back by the ICF to the Crown on 5 Feb. at Waitangi. Ngati Porou are using the case study as an opportunity not only to participate in this national information gathering exercise and analysis of relevant mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to iwi/hapu rights and interests in water, but to also; assert our position and to begin mapping out a way forward and plan for ourselves to ensure we are well prepared for discussions and negotiations locally, regionally and nationally on our rights and interests in freshwater and the mechanisms to give effect to these. The findings will also provide Ngati Porou with the platform for our Freshwater rights and interests negotiations with the Crown.

1.2.5 Question: Perak – who endorses the case study?

Answer: There are three layers of endorsement; via a) Horouta collective level via the HC hui on 19 Jan 2015 b) Ngati Porou hapu - through involvement in the development of the preferred mechanism and the implementation of the mechanism.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

c) Ministry for the Environment- Funder

1.2.6 Discussion: Peter – stated that the Crown should be coming to us and negotiating with us.

Discussion: - Ultimately that is exactly what will happen, the Crown and iwi have already agreed that the specific negotiations between the Crown and Iwi regarding rights and interests in freshwater will occur at a Crown- Iwi level. The role of the ILG-FW & RMA and the HC is principally to work together to develop high level policies and approaches with the Crown.

Understanding Current System

1.2.7 Question: Jennifer - Does Port Eastland have a discharge permit?

Answer: - yes under Waipaoa Catchment.

1.2.8 Question: Will we be charged to take water?

Answer: - Not at the moment, but it could come in future.

1.2.9 Questions: Jennifer – What are the mixing points from fresh water to sea water and what are the discharge points?

Answer: - we need to ask council for this information mindful that geology and slope will mean water flow varies.

1.2.10 Question: Can you explain why water is planned for and managed across catchments.

Answer: - the catchment is managed because it connects all the puna, streams, aquifers, ground water, surface water to one hub it provides a total picture of the water in a specific area- catchment. Ngati Porou are one of the only iwi who don’t know exactly how much water we have, because the local authority has not measured and/or collected this data.

It was noted there is no catchment plan for Waimata which connects with the Uawa R and Waiapu R. It was agreed that there should be a catchment plan for the Waimata

1.2.11 Question: N Searancke - how do farms engage with this? We see Nuhiti as having special feature/character aquifer.

Answer: - fundamentally it is accepted that the wai is collectively held because the wai knows no boundaries. The purpose of the work of the ILG-FW & RMA, the HC and NP is to co-develop and negotiate high level policies that affect everybody, farms, forestry and households. These policies will guide all discussions and negotiations. Where special cases/characters/features are in existence for specific water bodies, the Kaitiaki of those water bodies will play

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

a key role in the development of a set of holistic and cultural criteria for that water body. As part of our Freshwater Management Plan we will include a list of these special character sites, giving due recognition and identification of the special rules that apply to them and the role of their Kaitiaki.

1.2.12 Discussion: N Searancke at Nuhiti not everyone who whakapapa to Ngati Wakarara have a say. The aquifier on Nuhiti has been established as part of the Reserve since1985 and decisions made through the Ferris whanau. Where do we get resources from to quantify our aquifer? We don’t know how much water is in the aquifier, however in the last three droughts we haven’t run dry.

Understanding national policy impacts

1.2.13 Question: N Searancke what is our political strategy to lobby the Crown and Mfe. What level are discussions at Waitangi?

Answer: -The discussion between the ICF and the Crown at Waitangi will be high level, informed by an exchange of information and general agreement on a work programme for the next 12- 18 months that will enable he Crown and Iwi to address rights and interests in freshwater as part of the Crown’s overall Sustainable Management for Freshwater programme. Iwi have been participating in general discussions on freshwater management for the past 6 years and have consistently raised the need for the Crown and Iwi to resolve iwi/hapu rights and interests in freshwater. The ILG –FW & RMA will return to Waitangi to say they have consulted with their hapu to ascertain what hapu believe their rights and interests in freshwater are, and indicate the mechanisms that hapu iwi have identified that will recognise and give effect to their rights and interests in freshwater. The Crown will share with Iwi the information that they have been gathering regarding the current quantity and quality of water across the country at a Local Authority and Catchment level , indicating where current pressure points exist in terms of ‘over allocation and/or degradation of water bodies. This will assist the Crown and Iwi to determine the appropriate freshwater management mechanisms for specific areas/regions/iwi , cognisant of the quantity and quality of water in Local/regional authority districts and specific- catchments, the demand on water and the specific profile and requirements of iwi and hapu

1.2.14 Question: Beth – what is current state of National Policy Statement (NPS).

Answer: – the current status of the NPS, is that it came in to force last July 2014. The final policies and operational plans (like the GDC freshwater management plan) will be informed by the results of the ILG- FW & RMA consultation with Iwi and hapu through the (WaiMaori Hui) and Crown research collection process.

1.2.15 Discussion: N Searancke – we need to negotiate with the Crown to promote and support our position particularly where local Government are concerned.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Discussion: - The current NPS doesn’t have much teeth, because it allows councils and people to do what they want , the statement in relation to iwi/ hapu rights and interests in freshwater is fine but is still too dependent on the whim and will of the local council.

Other comments

1.2.16 Question: Ingrid – are the iwi of Tairawhiti coming together?

1.2.17 Answer: On this kaupapa, yes, through the Horouta Collective.

The hui agreed that there needs to be cohesion and collegiality between the Horouta Collective to support and promote each other’s respective positions.

1.2.18 Discussion: Beth – in relation to potential mechanisms can we give due consideration to how we can appropriately include Iwi Environmental Management Plans, particularly where Freshwater Plans have been developed or commenced.

1.2.19 Discussion: Albie on a practical level please be aware of existing demands on iwi/hapu and the resulting limitations in terms of their capacity and capability to be involved to the extent and at the level required. We need to be upskilling ourselves now to deal with these matters.

2 Resolutions

2.1 Motion: That we oppose the current GDC Draft Fresh Water Management strategy based on the fact that we did not co create it. Moved: Albie Gibson Second: Nicky Searancke CARRIED

2.2 Motion: That we support the establishment of a Joint Management Arrangement under S36 of the RMA for a transitional period of five years to enable us to achieve our preferred JMA option, under Section 33 of the RMA. Moved: Nicky Searancke Second: Peter Fox CARRIED

2.3 Motion: That we do not support the sale of water within the water permit system. Moved: Peter Fox Second: Perak Nikora CARRIED

2.4 Motion: That we endorse the creation and ongoing development of Iwi Environmental Freshwater Management Plans to replace the current GDC Draft Fresh Water Management Plan. Moved: Beth Tupara Katene Second: Albie Gibson CARRIED

Tasks to Note:

Provide copies of the Draft Freshwater Management Strategy

Access and copy more information relating to Whanganui River Settlement

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Record of Meeting

Ngati Porou Wai Maori Hui Rohenga Tipuna 5 (Round Two)

Thursday 15 January 2015, Kariaka Pa, Ruatoria 6pm

Present: Agnes Walker, Kate Walker, Lilian Tangaere Baldwin, Pia Pohatu, Hori, Hern, Betty Taingahue.

Project Team: S Parata, A Houkamau, R Parata, R Paenga, P Pohatu

Apologies: Timu Pohatu, Pane Kawhia, Ngarangi Walker, Kate Ngata, Raumiria Pohatu, T Porou, M Mahuika, W Te Aho

Hapu: Te Whanau a Rakairoa, Te Whanau a Hinekehu, Te Aitanga a Mate, Te Whanau a Te Aowera, Ngati Horowai

Marae: Hiruharama, Whareponga, Te Horo, Rongo i te Kai

Karakia: S Parata

Mihimihi: S Parata

3. Delivery of Presentation: (copy of presentation attached)

Note S Parata opened presentation referring to a korero he had with Uncle Api about Te Reo, te wa ka korero maori tatou ko te mea nui o te reo ko te wairua o tona ake reo, ehara e nga kupu anake. He orite tenei ki te taonga nei o te wai, he wairua ta te wai.

A Houkamau presented background information and summary of our hui outcomes from first round of the Ngati Porou Wai Maori hui. (slides 2-6).

P Pohatu and A Houkamau presented current technical space Ngati Porou is faced with, what impacts us now and operationally how we can achieve rights and interests identified by Ngati Porou hapu (slides 7-26).

S Parata concluded presentation handing back to hapu to make formal resolutions of their position going forward (slide 27).

Significant discussion occurred throughout the hui and is recorded in item 1.2 below.

3.1 Key Points Made during Presentation:

3.1.1 This is the second round of hui held with Ngati Porou hapu the previous hui held in November 2014 at Potaka, Rahui, Uepohatu, Uawa and an update was given at the TRONPnui AGM at Pakirikiri.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

3.1.2 We are part of the Horouta Collective, the Horouta Collective (HC) members are; Te Whanau a Apanui, Ngati Porou and the three iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa we are all conducting hapu hui to gather feedback and direction for each of our reports in one collective case study. The HC were selected by the ILG- Freshwater & RMA group to provide one of four case studies, documenting iwi hapu rights & interests in Waimaori (Freshwater) and the mechanisms they believed would recognise and give effect to those rights and interests. The case study will cover a general summary of the Horouta Collective and three individual reports written by each iwi grouping to describe unique position, existing freshwater management regimes or gaps, the rights and interests in WaiMaori of the hapū /iwi and preferred mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to hapū /iwi rights and interests.

3.1.3 The HC will meet with members of the ILG-Freshwater & RMA at 11.30am on 19 January at Te Poho o Rawiri, where preliminary summaries and recommendations pertaining to the case studies will be presented. It will also be presented to the Iwi Chairs Forum at Waitangi. We have made it clear to the ILG that negotiations with the Crown are iwi by iwi and implementation of the achieved mechanism through negotiations is by hapu. The ILG is a sub group of the Iwi Chairs Forum dealing with freshwater and RMA reforms. Selwyn is one of nine representatives on the ILG who are leading this kaupapa.

3.1.4 Ngati Porou hapu have been very consistent throughout these hapu hui in regards to their beliefs about their rights and interests with te wai. There has been a strong wairua connection within their relationship with te wai, although fresh water sustainable management has been an ongoing kaupapa for the past six years, for our whanau practically at home and on the ground there hasn’t been too much impact they have continued as per usual in terms of water use and care.

3.1.5 However this was due to change some hapu members said impacts have begun to show in terms of council policy advising it is not acceptable for households to rely only on rainwater for household use, albeit it is the only alternative for many of our whanau. Hapu have also observed puna on whanau land are diminishing because our tikanga tuku iho about how to maintain these puna have not been kept or followed over the years and it is beginning to show now. Through developing circumstances whanau themselves have altered land and water use purposes. GDC have indicated to households that we should not be solely reliant on rainwater for drinking and household water supply. On the whole hapu have supported the position that wai has its own mana and whatever we do going forward has to enable and provide for this fundamental view; while demonstrating that the practice of Kaitiakitanga comes back to whanau and hapu level over specific puna, springs, acquifiers, streams on their whenua.

3.1.6 The Crown have adopted the principles of Te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement. Te Mana o te Wai was adopted because it is consistent with

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

our relationship with te wai, it complements and can sit alongside the Ngati Porou Framework taken from our Deed of Settlement and FSSB Deed. Ngati Porou hapu are truly implementing and living out these principles.

3.1.7 Our unique position is unlike any other iwi when it comes to freshwater management, other iwi are a minority in their iwi boundary we are the overwhelming majority. Collectively we are the largest land owners, we are the major investors in our own development if Ngati Porou is going to be developed we will be the drivers of that development, we are also the largest rate payers in our rohe. In terms of consultation collective groups that have a right to be consulted are iwi, community and business, therefore because of our unique position the iwi voice covers all collective groups identified and our position should be heard.

3.1.8 When we went out and asked hapu what they thought their rights and interests were they summarized them as:  We have a Right of Say over the Wai  We have a Right to Protect, Nurture and Care for the Wai  We have a Right of Access and Use for all purposes that contribute to our wellbeing and  We have a Right to Develop

They also said that we have a right of veto but our advisor suggested we remove the use of the word veto because it can create nervousness with Crown negotiators and officials.

3.1.9 We have water issues across a broad spectrum of environmental, economic, social, cultural and political spheres. Part of this process is looking at how we can develop a plan that will conform to our principles, address and plan for existing and future water issues, it has been said that we fight to get to the table for lack of anything to go on the table. If we are saying we want to write the plan and be key part in implementing it we need to ensure that what we come up with is better than council. There is currently no fresh water management system and plan for the Ngati Porou rohe but there is a draft plan that is up for consideration that primarily focuses on the Waipaoa Catchment. The key concerns about the current GDC draft freshwater management plan are; Ngati Porou were not consulted or involved in the drafting of the plan and there are significant information gaps including, data on quantity and quality. Also what is recorded is questionable. A water quality report we received stated the quality of water in the Wharekahika is poor while the Te Puia lake water quality was good. Both surprising results. A Walker who works at Ngati Porou Hauora in Te Puia was also surprised because she was aware that the hospital discharges near or in the lake. There is a sign there that says do not swim. 3.1.10 The GDC are the last council in the country to develop a Fresh Water Management System. The current proposal in their draft freshwater management plan is the development of two catchment plans for the Ngati

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Porou rohe, the Uawa river catchment plan and Waiapu river catchment plant. Ngati Porou also needs to look at the interface with Marine and Coastal Plans.

3.1.11 In terms of decision making the varying levels need to be strategized, our whanau hapu have to be part of the process because water management sits with them. However hapu don’t have the resources and in some cases capability available to develop let alone implement fresh water management plans. It has been discussed at prior meetings about the need to revisit the hapu mechanisms operating in hapu communities. Also considering the work that hapu take on in a voluntary capacity, adding this is a huge amount of work.

3.1.12 There is also a significant iwi role and level of decision making and coordination, however there is nobody within TRONPnui currently who can take on this work. The role at iwi level is also important because hapu management plans will feed up to the Ngati Porou body who will administer at the rohe/regional level. We need an environmental unit within TRONPnui that will oversee kaupapa like this, the FSSB, Waiapu Accord, Doc accord and other relevant environmental project streams. The question was raised about the status of the TRONPnui environmental role with the response that the staff member is unwell and it is not known when she will return. Note: a motion was formalised by the hui which appears in the resolutions section of this minute.

3.1.13 The permitted water takers in Ngati Porou where minimal (six) however the hui was shocked to see the huge quantity of water take permitted to Pouariki Station and questioned how long this permit had been in place for. P Pohatu asked about the details of the permit where and when it was notified which we could not answer. The goal is that by 2018 when the permit expires hapu and iwi should be involved in the process of water permitting.

3.1.14 The permitting process in place now allows for permits to be issued for five years with a possibility of extending that to 25 years. At the moment anyone can go into the council request a water permit from within the Ngati Porou catchments and be granted that permit. This is the case in the example of the Pouariki water permit, that 3,456m² can be drawn from anywhere within Ngati Porou. It was noted that slide 17 ‘How it will work’ needs to be adjusted to say How it works now.

3.1.15 The team demonstrated the general rules applying to water allocation, advising that the first take is for municipal (drinking) purposes, a take is set aside for environmental purposes and the balance is available on a contestable basis for developmental purposes, including economic. This is how the discussion on trade ability of water had been framed in the other hui. Note Tokomaru hui were against trade ability while Gisborne hui refined that further in that they opposed trade ability within the permitting system that you are given what you need and if you don’t need use it you can’t sell it.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.1.16 The seven potential mechanisms for enabling nga hapu of Ngati Porou to give effect to our rights and interests were presented and explained in more detail.

o) JMA under Section 36B under RMA described in 1.1.17 p) JMA by treaty settlement not preferred requires support of council to enact q) Section 33 under RMA, described in 1.1.18 r) Advisory Committees, makes recommendations GDC previously had one it still subordinate to council. s) Water Catchment Bodies has an economic focus that sale and profit from water would be used to reinvest in the maintenance of catchment. Usually democratically elected which does not work for us. t) Maori Seats do work however it is still a political decision to get Maori Seats. u) Explicit recognition of our mana over our waterways similar to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed.

1.1.17 The Tuwharetoa S36B under RMA arrangement was described whereby the JMA consists of half iwi and half council members and an independent chair. Any land use consents on Maori land comes to this body to decide on. Tuwharetoa own the bed of lake Taupo but not the water in it, they are able to charge rent to users (Tourist operators, fishers etc) and they are also entitled to royalties.

1.1.18 A section 33 under the RMA has never been achieved by any iwi yet, despite the provision being in place since the introduction of the RMA in 1992. Section 33 enables the Local Council to delegate responsibility for Freshwater management to another entity, including Iwi. If Ngati Porou decides to go down this pathway, we will need to be proactive in lobbying

- Local Councillors to get their political support for the enactment of section 33

Pursuit of Section 33 JMA will be challenging, however it is the preferred mechanism because it is the mechanism that is the most consistent with the Toitu Ngati Porou/Te Mana o te Wai Frameworks.

1.1.19 The hui at Pakirikiri resolved to pursue Section 33 as the preferred mechanism however the hui at Te Poho o Rawiri were more pragmatic in their approach appreciating that we need time to collect the necessary data and research and develop the required level of decision making systems, processes and infrastructure and recommended a JMA under Section 36B of the RMA for a period of five years building up to a Section 33.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.1.20 The difficulty iwi have experienced with councils across the country is that by and large RMA provisions, settlement mechanisms and arrangements aren’t enacted to their full potential, so while the mechanisms may appear good they can only brush the surface in terms of how useful they are.

1.1.21 Ngati Porou will need to be considered and disciplined in who we appoint to a JMA. The qualities and skills of those who were appointed to an iwi consenting authority were described. This body will appoint commissioners so they must:

- Hold a current Making Good Decisions Programme certificate.

- Be skilled in tikanga o nga hapu o Ngati Porou

- Be appointed by the hapu

- Have a sound understanding of resource management issues.

- Be a pool of commissioners in case of a conflict of interest

- If they are not currently trained ensure that there are opportunities for others to be qualified over the next two years.

3.2 Feedback and Questions from Hapu Members

Comments on Principles, Ngati Porou Unique Position and NP Rights and Interests

1.2.1 Discussion: Agnes – we must have huge potential of uncontaminated water. Dairy farming other industries have not come in and affected us.

Which is why need to be ahead of the game while conforming to our principles.

1.2.2 Discussion: Agnes – we not only have a right to protect we have an obligation. In te ao Maori our interpretation of right to protect is deeper it comes from whakapapa and kaitiakitanga. This needs to be emphasised at the negotiations table, spell it out for them.

Discussion: Selwyn – we should also elaborate on well-being, pakeha think that kei te ora te tina well you are fine but our definition of well-being is oranga in its totality hinengaro, wairua.

1.2.3 Question: - Agnes – what is the Environmental Group in Christchurch the Crown setup? Is this a possibility for us?

Answer: Environment Canterbury ECan, the Crown set up this body through legislation to take the place of regional council to deal with environmental consenting and planning issues due to a cumbersome decision making process that was slowing progress down with Christchurch rebuild. The Crown appointed commissioners to ECan. Of the eight appointed one is Ngai Tahu

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

however its term is due to expire in 2016. This is not established under Section 33 of the RMA it was a Crown appointed body under special legislation.

1.2.4 Discussion: Agnes – ownership interests were discussed at the Foreshore and Seabed level. She would like to see propriety interests discussed in these negotiations, it would give hapu more legal certainty of recognition of their rights and interests. Note that propriety interest be discussed as part of negotiations strategy.

Discussion: In most hui ownership didn’t describe the relationship, the relationship is its ‘ours’ not yours, not theirs, not mine but ours. Our tipuna modelled for us the definition of collective living, even though they lived in their villages they would come together pera i te wa i patua a Hinematioro ka whakawhaiti nga hapu hei whakautu tona matenga.

Discussion: The Prime Minister has stated that nobody owns water that there won’t be a national settlement however some iwi will have rights and interests. It has been discussed in these hui that practically through the permitting system of some councils it is still possible for people to trade unused water from their water take permits.

Comments on Draft Freshwater Management Plan, Current Permitting System and Water Allocation Model and Various Levels of Influence,

1.2.5 Discussion: We don’t want to miss the boat on this like the fisheries allocation, we thought it didn’t directly affect us next minute a deal was done. We are at risk of the same thing happening with the wai, so we need to be influencing, co-developing, co-writing the plan for our rohe and co-decision making with regional authority.

We do not want to rely on a democratic process for appointments to the body which can negotiate to have our rights and interests recognised and provided for. That is why we need to be saying to GDC in terms of the Freshwater Management Plan for Ngati Porou we want to write that.

1.2.6 Question: Agnes – do you think the FSSB approach is too big a leap for our water management strategy.

Response: There is a Crown negotiation level but equally as critical is the regional local Government level where actual oversight takes place. We need to be proactive in all levels including whanau hapu level to ensure we are best setting ourselves up for the future.

1.2.7 Discussion: Agnes - the Hikuranga Takewa Rohenga Tipuna system works here, however it relies on hapu having a say within planning.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.2.8 Discussion: Pia – in terms of the Matauranga project hapu have been working on the successful hapu groups have been those who have cohesion within themselves.

1.2.9 Discussion: Agnes - the water allocation model is very worrying I thought we had the mana motuhake to design our own system, we should be very concerned about this. Fundamentally we should be exempted from this water allocation model because our circumstances are vastly different from urban cities. We should not be required to have a permit take from streams on our own whenua. Most of us take our water from ground springs and rainwater. There was agreement about this but it needs to be discussed and analysed further.

Comments on Potential Mechanisms, Hapu Capability and Other comments

1.2.10 Discussion: Agnes – we also need to be including a mechanism whereby provision is made for the explicit recognition over our whanau hapu waterways, because we have water bodies that are exclusively for our use, that whanau and hapu have been kaitiaki over for generations. Note to include this acknowledgement in a motion endorsing the preferred approach.

1.2.11 Question: Agnes – what relevance does the Waiapu Accord have to this?

Answer: The focus of the Waiapu Accord has not been water management while that is part of it, it should sit alongside freshwater management as should customary fisheries management and sustainable land use management.

1.2.12 It has been raised in previous hui and we acknowledge that hapu capability and capacity to turn around and come up with an iwi environmental plan is stretched and it is timely to take stock of how we are operating at hapu level.

1.2.13 Question: Agnes – what are our risks?

Answer: Our risk is at central iwi level and maintaining te mana motuhake o Ngati Porou and not being pushed out by other iwi. At a regional level in terms of the Horouta Collective we all have different approaches and are dealing with different sets of circumstances.

2 Resolutions

2.1 Motion: That we oppose the current GDC Draft Fresh Water Management plan based on the fact that we did not co create it and it does not recognise or reflect the Ngati Porou position. Moved: Kate Walker Second: Lilian Tangaere Baldwin CARRIED

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

2.2 Motion: That explicit recognition of Ngati Porou mana over whanau hapu waterways is acknowledged and additional mechanisms negotiated that will bind council to practically give effect to this recognition. Furthermore we support the proposed management mechanism of a Joint Management Arrangement under S36 of the RMA for a transitional period of five years to enable us to achieve our preferred option, under Section 33 of the RMA. Moved: Agnes Walker Second: Lilian Tangaere Baldwin CARRIED

2.3 Motion: That we do not support the sale of water within the water permit system. Moved: Agnes Walker Second: Pia Pohatu CARRIED

2.4 Motion: That we recommend the establishment of an Environmental Unit within TRONPnui to provide support for the development and implementation of hapu fresh water management plans and other environmental kaupapa of the iwi. Moved: Pia Pohatu Second: Kate Walker CARRIED

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Record of Meeting

Ngati Porou Wai Maori Hui Rohenga Tipuna 1 (Round Two)

Saturday 17 January 2015, Hinerupe Marae, Te Araroa 10am

Present: Pierre Henare, Hiria Wirepa

Project Team: S Parata, A Houkamau, T Porou, R Paenga, P Pohatu

Apologies: Dawn Brooking, M Mahuika, W Te Aho

Hapu: Te Whanau a Hinerupe, Te Whanau a Hunaara, Te Whanau a Tapaeururangi, Te Whanau a Te Aotaiki, Te Whanau a Tuwhakairiora, Te Whanau a Te Aotaihi, Ngati Kahu.

Marae: Hinerupe

Karakia: S Parata

Mihimihi: S Parata

4. Delivery of Presentation: (copy of presentation attached)

Note H Wirepa apologised for the poor attendance, P Henare said that they had their dates mixed up and the secretary had booked the hui for Monday 19 January 2015. S Parata advised ahakoa he iti kei a raua nga whakapapa o nga hapu o te rohe o Hinerupe, o Tuwhakairiora, o Tapaeururangi o Hunaara. We can still share our korero and receive their feedback.

A Houkamau presented background information and summary of our hui outcomes from first round of the Ngati Porou Wai Maori hui. (slides 2-6).

T Porou presented current technical space Ngati Porou is faced with, what impacts us now and operationally how we can achieve rights and interests identified by Ngati Porou hapu (slides 7-26).

S Parata concluded presentation handing back to hapu to make formal resolutions of their position going forward (slide 27).

4.1 Key Points Made during Presentation:

4.1.1 This is the second round of hui held with Ngati Porou hapu the previous hui held in November 2014 at Potaka, Rahui, Uepohatu, Uawa and an update was given at the TRONPnui AGM at Pakirikiri. In the previous round we asked hapu about their relationship with te wai, they shared local knowledge listing their traditional puna, springs on their whanau hapu whenua. Hapu said that their rights and interests included, a right to part of decision making, right to veto,

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

that they were key decision makers not iwi. There is a consistency across hapu in terms of their views on what their rights and interests are and how that can be provided for.

4.1.2 Although this national discussion has been taking place for the last 6-7 years our water experiences as hapu have continued as normal. Whanau don’t think about wider issues relating to water unless there is a drought or they have a lot of manuhiri and are running low, because the majority of us are surviving from rain or spring water supply.

4.1.3 The principles adopted by us have come from the Iwi Leaders Group principles of Te Mana o te Wai. The Crown also adopted the principles of Te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement. Te Mana o te Wai was adopted by us because it is consistent with our relationship with te wai, it can sit alongside the Ngati Porou Framework taken from our Deed of Settlement and FSSB Deed. We are part of the Horouta Collective, the Horouta Collective (HC) members are; Te Whanau a Apanui, Ngati Porou and the three iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa we are all conducting hapu hui to gather feedback and direction for each of our reports in one collective case study. The HC were selected by the ILG- Freshwater & RMA group to provide one of four case studies, documenting iwi hapu rights & interests in Waimaori (Freshwater) and the mechanisms they believed would recognise and give effect to those rights and interests. The case study will cover a general summary of the Horouta Collective and three individual reports written by each iwi grouping to describe unique position, existing freshwater management regimes or gaps, the rights and interests in WaiMaori of the hapū /iwi and preferred mechanisms for recognising and giving effect to hapū /iwi rights and interests.

4.1.4 The HC will meet with members of the ILG-Freshwater & RMA at 11.30am on 19 January at Te Poho o Rawiri, where preliminary summaries and recommendations pertaining to the case studies will be presented. It will also be presented to the Iwi Chairs Forum at Waitangi. We have made it clear to the ILG that negotiations with the Crown are iwi by iwi and implementation of the achieved mechanism through negotiations is by hapu. The ILG is a sub group of the Iwi Chairs Forum dealing with freshwater and RMA reforms.

4.1.5 We can evidence our unique position other iwi are a minority in their iwi boundary we are the overwhelming majority. Collectively we are the largest land owners, we are the major investors in our own development if Ngati Porou is going to be developed we will be the drivers of that development, we are also the largest rate payers in our rohe. Government identified groups that have the characteristics listed as being unique to Ngati Porou as key stakeholders and need to be consulted. Therefore the Ngati Porou position needs to be heard. It is worth noting that the GDC have a draft freshwater management plan (FWMP) which focuses on the Waipaoa River, they propose to develop a FWMP for Uawa and Waiapu catchments which are within our rohe boundary.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

4.1.6 When we went out and asked hapu what they thought their rights and interests were they summarized them as:  We have a Right of Say over the Wai  We have a Right to Protect, Nurture and Care for the Wai  We have a Right of Access and Use for all purposes that contribute to our wellbeing and  We have a Right to Develop

They also said that we have a right of veto but our advisor suggested we remove the use of the word veto because it can create nervousness with Crown negotiators and officials.

4.1.7 We have complex water issues across a broad spectrum of environmental, economic, social, cultural and political spheres. Part of this process is looking at how we can develop a plan that will conform to our principles, address and plan for existing and future water issues, it has been said that we fight to get to the table for lack of anything to go on the table. The system we design needs to not just do the job but be better than what GDC have to offer. This is because consenting decisions need to be responded to within 20 days we have to be set up ready to respond. There is currently no fresh water management system and plan for the Ngati Porou rohe but there is a draft plan that is up for consideration that primarily focuses on the Waipaoa Catchment. The GDC have proposed to begin working on the Uawa and Waiapu catchments because Ngati Porou is a settlement iwi. The maps circulated do not cover the northern catchments Wharekahika, Awatere and Karakatuwhero which would affect the hapu here.

4.1.8 The GDC give permits without also requiring discharge permits, there are no consistent rules in regards to use of the water take, quantities taken, location of takes and how water takes are monitored and reviewed, added to this if you have an existing permit you have first right of renewal. A discussion on the location of the septic disposal site in Te Araroa placed it at the shingles at a guess. This is another thing we need to be looking at the location of these disposal sites, landfills and transfer stations most of them are very close to water sources.

4.1.9 In terms of decision making the varying levels need to be strategized and mapped out, our whanau hapu have to be part of the process because water management sits with them for example managing the quality of a stream sits at hapu level however setting the limits or levels of the quality sits at an iwi level. There will be a number of instances where we need to figure out how we interact with each of the decision making levels.

4.1.10 The water allocation model was drawn (see below) to demonstrate how council currently allocates water in the region. All water in the region is

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

measured in catchments, you can look at the catchment as a pot and council measures all the water in that catchment and designates and quantifies it for various purposes called allocation. The allocated amounts are for; - Environmental use or instream use so that ecosystems are not killed or destroyed because of water use. - Municipal supply which is drinking and household use. - Cultural supply - Industry supply available for allocation and water take permits. Industry ( Trade- able) Cultural Cultural Environmental (Instream) Municipal (drinking)

4.1.11 It is not known by council or ourselves how much water we have in Ngati Porou. This is what council would like to find out for us and this is what we are proposing we find out for ourselves with their support. Through this model above council is suggesting trade ability or sale of water as an option. It is currently an option but not exploited in Ngati Porou as it is in Turanga. P Henare noted that the cultural allocation should not sit within the model as one of the allocation categories but run across all categories. 4.1.12 The permitted water takers in Ngati Porou were minimal (six). A discussion on how Pouariki Station would have achieved their permit took place. One of the things is that the system benefits those who know how to make it work. Any permit above municipal supply has to be notified, then gets notified in the paper and submissions requested then goes to a hearing. If there are no submissions then it will likely get approval. If hapu and iwi management plans were in place they would guide any water permit applications. 4.1.13 The situation we have within Ngati Porou is that we have hectares of under developed land that will require water to develop it. Therefore we need that backed up by research, science and incorporated into our management plans and water allocation model. Turanga iwi want to use excess water to sell on open market because they have been so shut out of permitting and use in Gisborne. Some iwi propose to store water and sell later, a discussion about feasibility of that happening in Ngati Porou, it is possible with climate change the harshness of drought will increase and so demand for water will definitely increase. We need to ensure our cultural obligations are covered but we also have a right to develop, we want to control the supply so that if there is financial benefit it is for the hapu not a few individuals with a water permits. 4.1.14 The seven potential mechanisms for enabling nga hapu of Ngati Porou to give effect to our rights and interests were presented and explained in more detail. v) JMA under Section 36B under RMA described in 1.1.15 w) JMA by treaty settlement not preferred requires support of council to enact x) Section 33 under RMA, described in 1.1.16

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

y) Advisory Committees, makes recommendations GDC previously had one it still subordinate to council. z) Water Catchment Bodies has an economic focus that sale and profit from water would be used to reinvest in the maintenance of catchment. Usually democratically elected which does not work for us. aa) Maori Seats do work however it is still a political decision to get Maori Seats. bb) Explicit recognition of our mana over our waterways similar to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed. 4.1.15 The Tuwharetoa S36B under RMA arrangement was described whereby the JMA consists of half iwi and half council members and an independent chair. Any land use consents on Maori land comes to this body to decide on. Tuwharetoa own the bed of lake Taupo but not the water in it, they are able to charge rent to users (Tourist operators, fishers etc) and they are also entitled to royalties. 4.1.16 A section 33 under the RMA has never been achieved by any iwi yet, despite the provision being in place since the introduction of the RMA in 1992. Section 33 enables the Local Council to delegate responsibility for Freshwater management to another entity, including Iwi. If Ngati Porou decides to go down this pathway, we will need to be proactive in lobbying

- Local Councillors to get their political support for the enactment of section 33

Pursuit of Section 33 JMA will be challenging, however it is the preferred mechanism because it is the mechanism that is the most consistent with the Toitu Ngati Porou/Te Mana o te Wai Frameworks.

4.1.17 The difficulty iwi have experienced with councils across the country is that by and large RMA provisions, settlement mechanisms and arrangements aren’t enacted to their full potential, so while the mechanisms may appear good they can only brush the surface in terms of how useful they are.

4.1.18 Ngati Porou will need to be considered and disciplined in who we appoint to a JMA. The qualities and skills of those who were appointed to an iwi consenting authority were described. This body will appoint commissioners so they must:

- Hold a current Making Good Decisions Programme certificate.

- Be skilled in tikanga o nga hapu o Ngati Porou

- Be appointed by the hapu

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

- Have a sound understanding of resource management issues.

- Be a pool of commissioners in case of a conflict of interest

- If they are not currently trained ensure that there are opportunities for others to be qualified over the next two years.

1.1.19 T Porou advised we have met with a team from GDC in the environmental planning unit the head of the unit is Dave Wilson he mokopuna na Sandi Hovell, Sera Pohatu, Keriana Wilcox and one other. At this hui we were upfront about our position and what how our hapu believe their rights and interests can be recognised in terms of a Section 33 being the long term goal. They seemed to receive the information positively they were clear that they are not the decision makers council are. But they were keen to work together, share information and work with us they recognise our circumstances are unique. They appreciate we are building capability in two areas at TRONPnui level in an iwi wide hapu infrastructure level and at a hapu management level.

1.1.20 The hui was asked to endorse existing resolutions from previous hui, amend or formulate new recommendations.

4.2 Feedback and Questions from Hapu Members

Note that all questions and feedback are recorded below

1.2.1 Question: Pierre asked if they (the GDC) had incorporated any of P Pohatu and T Warmenhoven research on Waiapu River into their draft freshwater plan.

Answer: She responded it did not appear so. T Porou also noted that she was asked to critique the FWMP and she did not see any of her feedback reflected in the reports she had read by GDC.

1.2.2 Question: Pierre – High level discussions start where?

Response: TRONPnui need to use their level of influence and relationships as settlement iwi in negotiations and at regional level with GDC. However they also need to be aware that this can only work from the ground up, hapu have to inform the iwi level fresh water management plan. Across the hui all hapu have identified that they don’t have the resources and in most cases capability available to develop let alone implement fresh water management plans. It was discussed that we need to revisit the hapu mechanisms operating in hapu communities. It has also been identified that there is nobody within TRONPnui currently who can take on the oversight coordination and management at iwi and regional level. Our previous hui discussed the need for an environmental unit within TRONPnui that will oversee kaupapa like this, the FSSB, Waiapu Accord, Doc accord and other relevant environmental project streams. The

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

question was raised about the status of the TRONPnui environmental role with the response that the staff member is unwell and it is not known when she will return.

1.2.3 Question – How much would it cost to find out how much water we have?

Response – It took Waikato 7 years to find our and millions of dollars. We have more water sources and less land mass. At a guess it might take us $1.5million.

1.2.4 Question – How would it be collected?

Response – There would be monitoring stations across selected water bodies in the rohe.

1.2.5 Discussion – In Te Araroa the municipal drinking water supply is from the sky from te Atua, if they run out they have to call Jack Higgins who has a water carting business which is $300-$400 a load. We are not exactly sure where he takes the water from.

Discussion – He is not required under councils current system to have a water take permit or discharge permit, they only standards he needs to meet are in relation to water quality. Anyone can take water from anywhere in the rohe and cart it to anywhere in the rohe.

1.2.6 Discussion – Tina a key task for us will be to list all the waterways on our lands, all discharge sites on our lands. We need to be assisting landowners to fence waterways because if we don’t resource it, it won’t happen. This notion was challenged however another possibility is that tax incentives could be offered to those who do undertake the fencing.

1.2.7 Discussion – Te Araroa are currently working on their Matauranga plan and part of that is a stocktake of assets, resources and gaps in the community and getting a handle on how to manage it. Environmental we have significant critical mass to progress an environmental strategy. Schools in Matakaoa have done some initial water quality monitoring. Hinerupe are looking at reintroducing te Taiao Wananga.

1.2.8 Discussion – Tina all our land users need to be part of this plan it affects every single one of them and every household. Water users who take more than municipal supply cannot just take and not give back. We don’t want our disadvantaged to become more disadvantaged. DoC already collect information from a variety of spots how can we hapu access information from DoC monitoring stations, weather stations etc so we are not reinventing the wheel.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

2 Resolutions

2.2 Motion: That we endorse the Te Mana o Te Wai Principles and Toitu Ngati Porou Framework as it affirms the cultural view that affirms all sustainable resource development. Moved: Pierre Henare Second: Hiria Wirepa CARRIED

2.3 Motion: That explicit recognition of Ngati Porou mana over whanau hapu waterways is acknowledged and additional mechanisms negotiated that will bind council to practically give effect to this recognition. Furthermore we support the proposed management mechanism of a Joint Management Arrangement under S36 of the RMA for a transitional period of five years to enable us to achieve our preferred option, under Section 33 of the RMA. Moved: Pierre Henare Second: Hiria Wirepa CARRIED

2.4 Motion: That we do not support the sale of water within the water permit system. Moved: Pierre Henare Second: Hiria Wirepa CARRIED

2.5 Motion: That we recommend the establishment of an Environmental Unit within TRONPnui to provide support for the development and implementation of hapu fresh water management plans and other environmental kaupapa of the iwi. Moved: Pierre Henare Second: Hiria Wirepa CARRIED

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

Record of Meeting

Ngati Porou Wai Maori Hui Rohenga Tipuna 2 (Round Two)

Saturday 17 January 2015, Tairawhiti Marae, Rangitukia 2pm

Present: Brent Mauhen-Singe, Georgina Green, Wiremu Paenga, Christine Paenga, Hine Manuel, Anne Huriwai, April Papuni Isles.

Project Team: S Parata, A Houkamau, T Porou, R Paenga, P Pohatu

Apologies: Merekaraka Te Whitu, M Mahuika, W Te Aho

Hapu: Te Whanau a Hunaara, Te Whanau a Takimoana, Ngai Tane, Te Whanau a Rerewa, Te Whanau a Tapuhi, Te Whanau a Hinepare, Te Whanau a Rakairoa, Te Whanau a Rakaimataura, Te Rapera, Ngati Putaanga, Te Whanau a Rakaihoea, Te Whanau a Karuwai, Te Whanau a Hinerupe.

Marae: Hinerupe, Kaiwaka, Putaanga, Taumata o Tapuhi, Hinepare, Ohinewaiapu

Karakia: S Parata

Mihimihi: S Parata

5. Delivery of Presentation: (copy of presentation attached)

A Houkamau presented background information and summary of our hui outcomes from first round of the Ngati Porou Wai Maori hui. (slides 2-6).

T Porou presented current technical space Ngati Porou is faced with, what impacts us now and operationally how we can achieve rights and interests identified by Ngati Porou hapu (slides 7-26).

S Parata concluded presentation handing back to hapu to make formal resolutions of their position going forward (slide 27).

5.1 Key Points Made during Presentation:

5.1.1 This is the second round of hui held with Ngati Porou hapu the previous hui held in November 2014 at Potaka, Rahui, Uepohatu, Uawa and an update was given at the TRONPnui AGM at Pakirikiri. In the previous round we asked hapu about their relationship with te wai, they shared local knowledge listing their traditional puna, springs on their whanau hapu whenua. Hapu said that their rights and interests included, a right to part of decision making, right to veto,

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

that they were key decision makers not iwi. There is a consistency across hapu in terms of their views on what their rights and interests are and how that can be provided for.

5.1.2 The principles adopted by us have come from the Iwi Leaders Group principles of Te Mana o te Wai. The Crown also adopted the principles of Te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement. Te Mana o te Wai was adopted by us because it is consistent with our relationship with te wai, it can sit alongside the Ngati Porou Framework taken from our Deed of Settlement and FSSB Deed. We are part of the Horouta Collective, the Horouta Collective (HC) members are; Te Whanau a Apanui, Ngati Porou and the three iwi of Turanganui a Kiwa we are all conducting hapu hui to gather feedback and direction for each of our reports in one collective case study. The HC were selected by the ILG- Freshwater & RMA group to provide one of four case studies, documenting iwi hapu rights & interests in Waimaori (Freshwater) and the mechanisms they believed would recognise and give effect to those rights and interests. The HC will present this to ILG Monday 19 January 2015 in Gisborne.

5.1.3 Our unique position needs to be leveraged to assert our position in relation recognition of our rights and interests. Other iwi are a minority in their iwi boundary we are the overwhelming majority. Collectively we are the largest land owners, we are the major investors in our own development if Ngati Porou is going to be developed we will be the drivers of that development, we are also the largest rate payers in our rohe. This gives us key stakeholder interests as hapu and iwi we comprise all of the main groupings of interested parties that should be consulted.

5.1.4 When we went out and asked hapu what they thought their rights and interests were they summarized them as:  We have a Right of Say over the Wai  We have a Right to Protect, Nurture and Care for the Wai  We have a Right of Access and Use for all purposes that contribute to our wellbeing and  We have a Right to Develop

They also said that we have a right of veto but our advisor suggested we remove the use of the word veto because it can create nervousness with Crown negotiators and officials.

5.1.5 T Porou presentation discussed the many considerations in pursuing recognition of the rights and interests hapu are seeking. Currently the GDC have a draft freshwater management plan (FWMP) which focuses on the Waipaoa River, they propose to develop a FWMP for Uawa and Waiapu catchments which are within our rohe boundary. We would like to be leading the development of catchment plans with our rohe, the key concerns about the current GDC

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

draft freshwater management plan are; Ngati Porou were not consulted or involved in the drafting of the plan and there are significant information gaps including, data on quantity and quality. We received a section of a report called the Section 32 Report that had details of water quality in our rohe that stated water in Te Puia was of good quality which we know to be untrue. We have since requested access to the full report.

5.1.6 We have complex water issues across a broad spectrum of environmental, economic, social, cultural and political spheres. Part of this process is looking at how we can develop a plan that will conform to our principles, address and plan for existing and future water issues, at all hui we have proposed this notion that we are up for the fight to get to the table for lack of anything to go on the table. The system we design needs to not just do the job but be better than what GDC have to offer. This is because consenting decisions need to be responded to within 20 days we have to be set up ready to respond.

5.1.7 The GDC give permits without also requiring discharge permits, there are no consistent rules in regards to use of the water take, quantities taken, location of takes and how water takes are monitored and reviewed, added to this if you have an existing permit you have first right of renewal. At our last hui we discussed the location of the septic disposal site in Te Araroa Hal Hovell noted that it was located behind the transfer station at the beach. This is another thing we need to be looking at the location of these disposal sites, landfills and transfer stations most of them are very close to water sources.

5.1.8 In terms of decision making the varying levels need to be strategized and mapped out, our whanau hapu have to be part of the process because water management sits with them for example managing the quality of a stream sits at hapu level however setting the limits or levels of the quality sits at an iwi level. There will be a number of instances where we need to figure out how we interact with each of the decision making levels.

5.1.9 It is not known by council or ourselves how much water we have in Ngati Porou. We need to find out for ourselves in order to better manage is care, use and allocation. The water allocation model was drawn (see below) to demonstrate how council currently allocates water in the region. All water in the region is measured in catchments, you can look at the catchment as a pot and council measures all the water in that catchment and designates and quantifies it for various purposes called allocation. The allocated amounts are for;

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

- Environmental use or instream use so that Industry ( Trade- ecosystems are not killed or destroyed because able)

Cultural of water use. Cultural - Municipal supply which is drinking and household use. Environmental - Cultural supply, not the position of cultural (Instream)

supply across all categories was suggested at Te Municipal Araroa. (drinking) - Industry supply available for allocation and water take permits.

5.1.10 The permitted water takers in Ngati Porou where minimal (six) a discussion on how Pouariki Station would have achieved their permit. And what the steps are for the public to get a water permit. It has been mentioned that this system benefits those who know how to make it work. Any permit above municipal supply has to be notified, then gets notified in the paper and submissions requested then goes to a hearing. If there are no submissions then it will likely get approval. Only those people who have made a submission have the right to be heard at a consent hearing. If hapu and iwi management plans were in place they would guide any water permit applications.

1.1.11 Discussion: H Hovell notified the hui that there are two more consented water allocations in Te Araroa one to Brownie Waikari for Tokata and one for Te Araroa Holiday Park. This information was noted by project team, the council had provided the details of the listed water takers but we will follow up with them.

1.1.12 The challenge for us is in recognising that we are an open market for other parties not of Ngati Porou and who don’t have any regard for Te Mana o te Wai principles. Coca cola amatil have water permit for an iwi puna to bottle and make profit from this is legal. Ngai Tahu wanted to take a water permit out at Ruataniwha in Ngati Kahungunu to store water to sell, although they didn’t end up doing it, it is possible for them to do. We want to protect our taonga from such things. We want to be proactive not responding after the fact.

1.1.13 The seven potential mechanisms for enabling nga hapu of Ngati Porou to give effect to our rights and interests were presented and explained in more detail. cc) JMA under Section 36B under RMA described in 1.1.14 dd) JMA by treaty settlement not preferred requires support of council to enact such as in the case of Tainu, Waikato, Te Arawa river settlements. ee) Section 33 under RMA, described in 1.1.15 ff) Advisory Committees, makes recommendations GDC previously had one it still subordinate to council. gg) Water Catchment Bodies has an economic focus that sale and profit from water would be used to reinvest in the maintenance of catchment. Usually democratically elected which does not work for us.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

hh) Maori Seats do work however it is still a political decision to get Maori Seats. ii) Explicit recognition of our mana over our waterways similar to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou FSSB Deed.

1.1.14 The Tuwharetoa S36B under RMA arrangement was described whereby the JMA consists of half iwi and half council members and an independent chair. Any land use consents on Maori land comes to this body to decide on. Tuwharetoa own the bed of lake Taupo but not the water in it, they are able to charge rent to users (Tourist operators, fishers etc) and they are also entitled to royalties.

1.1.15 A section 33 under the RMA has never been achieved by any iwi yet, despite the provision being in place since the introduction of the RMA in 1992. Section 33 enables the Local Council to delegate responsibility for Freshwater management to another entity, including Iwi. Pursuit of Section 33 JMA will be challenging, however it is the preferred mechanism because it is the mechanism that is the most consistent with the Toitu Ngati Porou/Te Mana o te Wai Frameworks. 1.1.16 The difficulty iwi have experienced with councils across the country is that by and large RMA provisions, settlement mechanisms and arrangements aren’t enacted to their full potential, so while the mechanisms may appear good they can only brush the surface in terms of how useful they are.

1.1.17 Ngati Porou will need to be considered and disciplined in who we appoint to a JMA. The qualities and skills of those who were appointed to an iwi consenting authority were described. This body will appoint commissioners so they must:

- Hold a current Making Good Decisions Programme certificate.

- Be skilled in tikanga o nga hapu o Ngati Porou

- Be appointed by the hapu

- Have a sound understanding of resource management issues.

- Be a pool of commissioners in case of a conflict of interest

- If they are not currently trained ensure that there are opportunities for others to be qualified over the next two years.

1.1.19 T Porou advised we have met with a team from GDC in the environmental planning unit the head of the unit is Dave Wilson he mokopuna na Sandi Hovell, Sara Pohatu, Keriana Wilcox and one other. At this hui we were upfront about our position and what how our hapu believe their rights and interests can be recognised in terms of a Section 33 being the long term goal. They seemed to receive the information positively they were clear that they are not the decision makers council are. But they were keen to work together, share information

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

and work with us they recognise our circumstances are unique. They appreciate we are building capability in two areas at TRONPnui level in an iwi wide hapu infrastructure level and at a hapu management level.

1.1.20 The hui was asked to endorse existing resolutions from previous hui, amend or formulate new recommendations.

1.1.21 Brief discussion on trade-ability the hui at Pakirikiri had spoken against the selling of water altogether however as we have moved around there is still the development opportunity for hapu and iwi so we did not want to be locked into no selling at all. Therefore the position changed to no selling of water excess from a water permit, rather it would be returned to the pot and we would have control over the allocation of excess.

1.2 Feedback and Questions from Hapu Members

Note that all questions and feedback are recorded below

1.2.1 Discussion: H Hovell we need to be very careful about cultural take, trying to include puna and springs where generationally families have taken water from in a GDC system will frustrate a whole lot of people, proposing they might have to pay for their cultural right will anger whanau.

1.2.2 Discussion: Brent – water doesn’t do much unless you can catch it and use it. I have a 1500L tanker which I fill up for households particularly at times of drought. They pay me, nobody charges me to take it or asks me to get a permit.

Response: The issue here is setting limits based on research on how much you are taking. In the first instance we have to calculate how much water per household. In the event there is excess water it doesn’t get wasted but goes back to the pot. It isn’t about taxing the household water supply it’s about managing those users who take more than the household supply. In Waikato there is a farmer who has a water take permit for more water than the whole municipal supply in Waikato.

Response: The system currently used by GDC is not adequate it also suits those who are first in first served. GDC are suggesting rolling their current system over on to us. We have told them that we do not want this, their draft FWMP is being opposed by our hapu within Ngati Porou.

1.2.3 Discussion: April – there are multiple land use examples where ‘their’ pakeha system has been applied to us and we have been lumped with it.

Response: We want to design something new as you will see when we present the potential mechanisms. We are advocating that we write the plan and design the system.

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

1.2.4 Discussion: Brent – we already have people who are damming streams, blocking access ways and diverting streams for their own causes such as forestry and we want to monitor households what about the forestry companies.

Response: We aren’t concerned with how you take for households we just want to measure the whole lot so that we know in total how much we have. Then it is more realistic to put rules around how much and where you can take and what conditions you need to meet in terms of discharge and avoiding environmental disturbance.

1.2.5 Question: So I could go anywhere on the coast and take water for my own purposes.

1.2.6 Response: Yes you could even sell it. This is why we are asserting as hapu that we want control over certain waterbodies. So that any consents that don’t meet our standards can be declined.

Response: This includes ourselves as well as other parties, we will need to be vigilant with ourselves.

1.2.7 Discussion: Hal – I have read the draft FWMP there is a lot in it for landowners to deal with.

1.2.8 Question: Anne – in relation to potential mechanisms what is the guarantee of a relationship?

Response: S36B under RMA is legally binding agreement, we are also a settled iwi and GDC have an obligation to be in relationship with us. Through direct negotiations we can lobby Crown to enforce that relationship. Nationally however Councils have taken a minimalistic approach to utilising the RMA and we will have to work and put effort into GDC Ngati Porou relationship. TRONPnui has relationship accords via Waiapu Accord.

1.2.9 Question: Wiremu – how do hapu get themselves ready?

Response: These types of discussions, wananga amongst yourselves to get the discussions happening. As part of Matauranga project some hapu may have started gathering data already. You can be preparing your lists of puna wai and the hapu who are kaitiaki of them. You could be encouraging within local school curriculum water management in a cultural context and quality and use tests.

1.2.10 Question: for H Hovell this morning we discussed the possibility of accessing some of the Doc monitoring information.

Responses: We have both flora and fauna information, spawning sites for species, riparian zone management including land use. Doc also encourages

Ngāti Porou Milestone 2 Report January 2015

and supports including environmental management practices in school curriculum. Hapu themselves have begun collecting names and sites of significant hapu resources.

1.2.11 Discussion: Anne – we should also be looking at our infrastructure issues, many homes on the coast have cracked tanks there is a lot of water lost here. We have water issues closer to home which are also urgent and connected to wellbeing.

1.2.12 Discussion: April – this is a pivotal issue and we need intentional, planned communications about this kaupapa across generations because it affects every member of our whanau hapu on the coast.

2 Resolutions

2.2 Motion: That explicit recognition of Ngati Porou mana over whanau hapu waterways is acknowledged and additional mechanisms negotiated that will bind council to practically give effect to this recognition. Furthermore we support the proposed management mechanism of a Joint Management Arrangement under S36 of the RMA for a transitional period of five years to enable us to achieve our preferred option a full transfer of powers to iwi body, under Section 33 of the RMA. Moved: Ruihana Paenga Second: Anne Huriwai CARRIED

2.3 Motion: That we do not support the sale of water within the water permit system. Moved: April Papuni Iles Second: Brent Mauheni CARRIED

2.4 Motion: That we recommend the establishment of an Environmental Strategy Unit within TRONPnui to provide support and enable implementation of hapu fresh water management plans and other environmental kaupapa of the iwi. Moved: Hal Hovell Second Hine Manuel CARRIED